Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Undergraduate Course Applications

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: How many applications were made to Scottish universities for undergraduate courses starting in the 1998–99 academic year by students whose principal residence is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; and how many such applications were made for courses starting in the 1997–98 year. [45570]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): According to recently released figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the number of applicants to Scottish higher education institutions from the rest of the UK in 1998 was 33,081 by 16 May 1998; that compares with 34,527 on the same date in 1997.

Mr. St. Aubyn: As the figures suggest, there has been a significant fall in the number of applicants from the rest of the United Kingdom—and, of course, they have not yet taken up their places. Is it not time that the Government acknowledged the unfairness of the extra year's £1,000 tuition fee being charged to students from the rest of the UK? Do the Government recognise that they are driving a wedge between Scottish students and those from other parts of the country and, in doing so, yet again playing into the hands of the independence movement that they claim to oppose?

Mr. Wilson: From the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, who composed—or received —that question, I imagine that the fall I have reported is disappointingly small. I wonder how he squares his thesis with the fact that the reduction in applications from Scotland to the rest of the UK is greater than the reduction in applications from the rest of the UK into Scotland. The reduction obviously has nothing to do with tuition fees; applications have held up extremely well. If we take account of the fact that there has been a substantial increase in admissions to Scottish universities in the current academic year, there has been no drop-off at all in applications to university from any part of the UK.

Mr. James Wallace: Is the Minister aware that in a speech yesterday Lord Dearing

indicated great concern about the public funding of universities and warned of overcrowded classes, declining standards and soaring student failure and drop-out rates? Will the Minister take this opportunity to give an unequivocal undertaking that any sums raised from the payment of fees will be ring-fenced and put right back into higher education?

Mr. Wilson: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must explain his position as well. We can say exactly where additional money will come from for universities and for further education because we have had the courage to take decisions about funding. The Liberal Democrats, nationalists and Tories have resisted those difficult decisions in terms of their own policies. I can say with confidence that, as a result of our changes— based on the Dearing recommendations—substantial additional money will go to higher education.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that university education was regressive and did not help to increase participation by young people from working-class families? Does not the new system still take account of three quarters of the cost of tuition? Is not it much fairer, in the sense that the individual and society benefit, while sharing the cost?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, there is 11 per cent. entry into higher education in Scotland from the two lower socio-economic groups, whereas there is more than 80 per cent. entry from the two highest socio-economic groups. That is the status quo which all Opposition parties appear anxious to defend. On the contrary, we have said that on all grounds access must be extended. That is why people from households with below average earnings will pay absolutely nothing in tuition fees and why we have abolished fees for part-time students from lower income backgrounds in Scotland. All those measures are aimed at widening access, and there is nothing in the proposals to limit higher education access for people from less well-off backgrounds—quite the contrary, and potential students, whose life prospects depend on decisions taken now, understand that. That is why applications have held up so well, in spite of the efforts of some Opposition Members.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am sure that the Minister will shortly receive the cool Britannia medal from the Prime Minister for the calm way in which he responds to his figures. Will he give the House a firm assurance that he will at no time during this Parliament increase the tuition fee in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: I welcome the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to the Dispatch Box; I am sure that he will join me in wishing Scotland well tonight. Opposition Members must live with the basic fact that, despite the changes in student funding, applications for higher education in Scotland have held up extremely well. The systems of higher education in Scotland and in England are different—school qualifications are different and university degree courses are different—and cannot be matched perfectly. Addressing that anomaly would create a much greater anomaly for people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example.

Road Deaths

Mr. David Stewart: What representations he has received about the level of road deaths in Scotland. [45571]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am aware that the number of road accident casualties is a matter of great concern to a great many people. The Government share that concern and are committed to bringing about further reductions in the toll of people killed and injured on our roads.

Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the recent investigation by the statistical office of the European Commission shows that 118 people per million are killed on roads in the highlands and islands—the highest proportion in Scotland? The Automobile Association argues that one factor is the number of single-track roads. Will he undertake to end the folly of single-track trunk roads in Scotland and to aid road safety in the highlands and islands?

Mr. McLeish: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the recent statistics, but there is no one simple reason for the problems in the highlands. To put the figures in perspective, every day in Scotland 62 people are injured, 11 people are seriously injured, one person dies and there are 22 proven drink-driving charges and 250 speeding offences. We live in a dangerous situation, where people act irresponsibly. I should like to think that we will be taking further steps not only in the highlands, but across Scotland, to tackle this evil on our roads.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What comparison has the Minister made between the Scottish and English statistics, and what reason does he give for the discrepancy?

Mr. McLeish: I have made no comparison with the English statistics.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister confirm that the current roads review will take cognisance of safety issues and not be purely Treasury driven? There are still too many accident black spots in my constituency—as he will see when he visits it later this year—and in others that have gone unremedied for far too long.

Mr. McLeish: The trunk roads review is based on a number of criteria, of which, of course, efficiency, the environment, the economy and safety are very important. I have met, in London and in Edinburgh, many hon. Members from both sides of the House to discuss their concerns, and I have committed myself to an exhaustive programme of visits in August to ensure that I receive the information at first hand. We are determined to make roads safer and to get over to drivers the message that they can kill. The bigger message is: do not drink and drive; do not speed; and be careful in a motor car around children.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend may be aware that a soldier is seriously ill in

hospital following the most recent collision on the single carriageway Al trunk road in south-east Scotland. Will he acknowledge the need for safe and efficient communications between Scotland and England? As the Government are in favour of strong communications between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, will he please press ahead with the dualling of the A I trunk road?

Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend was one of the Members of Parliament whom we visited to discuss, as part of the roads review, the problems of the A I . We shall issue criteria for the review soon and I shall have the final report at the end of the year. We intend to ensure that safety is the greatest consideration, not only on the A1, but on every trunk road in Scotland. That will, of course, apply equally to the cross-border flows.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Why did the Minister duck the question from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) about single-track roads in the highlands? Is he not aware that literally thousands of miles of such roads, through the most beautiful parts of Scotland, draw in visitors who are used to driving on the right and that the statistics about accidents, including deaths, in the highlands are disturbing? Have the Government no policy to deal with such roads in the highlands?

Mr. McLeish: My response was not intended as a ducking of the central issue. In the past few years, a number of measures have been taken to improve road safety in the highlands and islands, such as improvements on the A82 between Tarbert and Inverness, and signing, lining and anti-skid surfacing. For foreign drivers, especially during the summer season, who have difficulty moving from dual to single carriageways, we are trying not only signposting but are having multilingual leaflets printed. We appreciate the problem and are trying to ease the plight of foreign tourists to the highlands and islands. The right hon. Gentleman can be reassured that everything that can be done is being done to improve road safety.

Business Support

Mr. Desmond Browne: What level of support the Scottish Enterprise network is giving to indigenous companies, with particular reference to small and medium businesses. [45572]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Scottish Enterprise's budget for 1997–98 amounted to £466 million and supported programmes predominantly aimed at assisting indigenous small and medium enterprises. Scottish Enterprise resources devoted to foreign direct investment during the same period amounted to £40.2 million.

Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the recent initiative to support and set targets for the survival of small businesses. My recent experience of campaigning for whisky jobs in my constituency has led me to the conclusion that the best results are obtained when the local enterprise companies work in partnership with the local authority, the local work force and the


private sector. Will my hon. Friend consider putting in place, or encouraging, mechanisms to ensure the delivery of that initiative through local partnerships?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right: partnership is the way forward in each area on all aspects of economic development. Our strategy directions to Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the network are to work closely with local authorities and other partners to get a coherent approach in every area. As my hon. Friend says, we have increased the target for new business start-ups in Scotland to 10,000 a year, which is building on the existing strategy for the development of small and medium enterprises. We think that that is achievable and partnership is the way forward.
On his initial point, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent campaign that was strongly based on partnership and effectively defended whisky jobs in Kilmarnock. Unfortunately, an equally well-run campaign was not so effective in the short term in Dumbarton. Last night, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and all the partners to which my hon. Friend referred, I had a meeting to find out how the problem could be remedied so that we can deal with the proposed J and B closure, which is to take effect in 2000. We will achieve that through partnership.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Minister likes to appear to be the friend of small businesses, as he has just said. How can he possibly expect us or the people of Scotland to believe that he wants to defend small businesses when he and his colleagues continue to defend the irregular practices of direct labour organisations that provide unfair competition to small businesses in their area, and Ministers refuse to take action against them?

Mr. Wilson: As a former small business man, I do not expect the hon. Lady to accept anything I say. However, I draw a distinction between that and expecting the people of Scotland to accept what I say.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The Minister will be aware of today's announcement of 250 job losses at Volvo bus in Irvine. He may not be aware that, last week, 40 redundancies were announced at Phoenix Cables and that, next week, there may be 600 job losses at Digital in Irvine. Can he give us some indication of what should be done in the Irvine area? Does he remember that when the previous Administration wound up the development corporation, I predicted that, rather than attention being focused on job attraction, such events would become the norm?

Mr. Wilson: The Volvo decision does not take effect until 2000 and involves an international restructuring. The initial loss of jobs will be in Germany and in Austria. I hope that measures can be put in place before then and that market conditions will be such that the job losses may not happen in Irvine in 2000, although there are difficulties there.
I do not join my hon. Friend in pre-empting the announcement by Digital Compaq. Everyone knows that the company is restructuring world wide, but we should wait for the outcome of that. In the spirit of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), we must work together wherever there are

job losses and for whatever reasons they happen to ensure that damage is limited in the short term and that new measures are taken to bring new jobs in the longer term.

East Ayrshire

Miss Julie Kirkbride: What representations he has received on the conduct of East Ayrshire local authority. [45573]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): May I first apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who would normally have answered this question? He has been dispatched—very willingly —to France to represent the Government at the Morocco game. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating Craig Brown and the team on their achievements so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] I think those shouts were a little more hearty on our side than on the other. There is something of an air of disappointment on the Opposition Benches this afternoon—with which, of course, I sympathise. The Scottish team has done well and we are proud of it. Our thoughts are with it as we look forward to what we hope will be a famous victory.
I have received a number of representations on East Ayrshire and I expect to receive today the council's response to the statutory notice served on it relating to the performance of its direct labour organisations.

Miss Kirkbride: We, too, would like to congratulate the Scottish team and wish it well for tonight's match. However, we wish that Labour local government in Scotland could perform as well and as effectively. The situation in East Ayrshire is testimony to the fact that sleaze is rife in Labour local government in Scotland. When will the Secretary of State maintain the Prime Minister's dictum that for members of the Labour party it should be one strike and then out? When will he tackle the problems of local government in Scotland? When will he set up a proper public inquiry to deal with gross misuse of public money?

Mr. Dewar: I take the situation in East Ayrshire very seriously, but I must caution the hon. Lady against jumping to conclusions. Sleaze is an unfortunate choice of word. On the face of it, there has clearly been a total collapse of financial control and management control.

Miss Kirkbride: Only that?

Mr. Dewar: Yes. Sleaze suggests dishonesty and personal corruption. If I were to accuse the hon. Lady—I stress that I do not—of sleaze, the authorities of the House would take a poor view. Perhaps she should consider waiting until she knows all the facts before she makes a rather pejorative judgment.
East Ayrshire is a serious matter. That is why I have, unprecedentedly, used my statutory powers to call on the local authority to provide information and a forward plan. I assure the House that I shall not hesitate to use my powers, which are extensive, if I am not totally satisfied that the matter is being put right and that any shortcomings and failures are being rooted out.

Ms Sandra Osborne: I welcome the Secretary of State's swift and decisive action on the current


problems. It is vital to the future of local government in Scotland, as will be the deliberations of the McIntosh commission, which is currently consulting on relations between local government and the Scottish Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take no lessons from the Tories about local government in Scotland? They spent 18 years trying to undermine and destroy it, culminating in their disastrous local government reorganisation, which was executed purely for party political reasons.

Mr. Dewar: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. The important thing is to get the matter put right. If there is one thought that should unite the House it is that properly funded and organised, effective local government is an important part of our democratic structure. I suspect that Tory Members are a little more confident on this matter because they do not control one council in Scotland. That gives them a gung-ho approach. I hope that they will take the matter seriously and support the effective actions that we are taking. In case they become too complacent, the word Westminster should be at least whispered.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Has the Secretary of State noticed that for value for money, efficiency and high-quality services, the top three mainland authorities are all Scottish National party controlled? Should he not recommend them as models of best practice to the inefficient, poorly run Labour authorities that have brought the whole Scottish local government system into disrepute?

Mr. Dewar: I take efficiency very seriously. The best defence for local government is efficient local government and effective delivery of local services. I looked with interest at the table to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I noticed that the important characteristic was not which political party was in control but the catchment area and make-up of authorities. Smaller, rural authorities tended to do well. To use one illustration, I think that there are about 10,000 public sector houses in Angus; in Glasgow, there are 100,000. A different scale and range of services have to be provided. I am becoming ungracious in my old age, but before the hon. Gentleman takes off to polish his halo I should tell him that Perth and Kinross direct maintenance department is running a deficit for the second year running—this year, it is £650,000.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Events in East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire and the Grampian police fraud squad investigation into Moray council concern all hon. Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his prompt response to many of those concerns. In the longer term, what thought has he given to changing the structure of local government in Scotland to bring about the direct election of mayors or provosts? If it is good enough for London, it is good enough for the towns and cities of Scotland. The big advantage that they would have over London is that Jeffrey Archer would never be a candidate.

Mr. Dewar: That is a vision of danger which I never share with my hon. Friend, but I shall think about it seriously tonight. He makes an important and fair point. Anyone looking around local government will agree that there is an atmosphere of change. Many people in

local government are thinking about such problems. The McIntosh commission is in session, and on its agenda will be electoral voting systems, the possibility of electing leadership of the sort mentioned and the introduction of a cabinet system. There are many ways to change the internal dynamics of local government. I look forward to the report of the McIntosh commission and taking forward an agenda for change that will benefit local government and reassure those who rely on its services.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no council tax payer in East Ayrshire or North Lanarkshire will pay any extra money this year or next as a direct result of the wrongdoings of his councillors?

Mr. Dewar: I cannot give such a simplistic assurance. If I did, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to question its practicality or propriety. We will consider the situation. We are waiting for the report of the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Today, we will receive the replies to the statutory request from the councils, which we must consider. It would be foolhardy and misleading for me to say that there will not be problems in meeting the gap that has appeared in the finances of the departments concerned. There are a number of ways and time scales over which that can be done.

Dr. Fox: It is clear from the Secretary of State's response that he is unwilling or unable to protect taxpayers from the malpractice or incompetence of Labour councillors. He is unable to protect Labour Members from deselection by members of the Blairite tendency and, indeed, unable to protect himself from the whispering campaign against him in his party in Scotland. As the senior Labour figure in Scotland, what responsibility does he take for that shambles?

Mr. Dewar: I believe in political accountability, and I am taking energetic action on that matter. I would be prepared to have a serious discussion with the hon. Gentleman about that, but, judging by the irrelevancies, that he dragged into his previous remarks, he is not interested in serious political debate.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am delighted to say that my wife is on the list of candidates—and no way is she a Blairite.
When can we expect to receive the McIntosh report? Is there not a pressing need for local government reform? If a different electoral system is good enough for the Scottish Parliament, surely we should introduce a different system for the election of local authority representatives which ignores the rather strange idea of elected provosts.

Mr. Dewar: That will clearly be an interesting debate. We want the McIntosh commission to have time to do its job properly. I do not rule out the possibility of an early report, perhaps on a limited number of issues, but legislation may be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which fast approaches.
I congratulate my hon. Friend's wife on being on the list. I am looking forward to having dinner with her and my hon. Friend on Saturday night.

Atomic Energy Policy

Dr. Julian Lewis: How many times he has met the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1998 to discuss energy policy. [45574]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chief executive of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to discuss nuclear issues.

Dr. Lewis: We have learnt that in March the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority had already recommended closing Dounreay. That was at about the time the Prime Minister agreed to accept a further nuclear shipment from Georgia. Was the Prime Minister informed of that UKAEA recommendation and, if so, why did he not tell the full story to the House? If he was not informed, who at the Scottish Office was responsible for the failure to inform him? If that failure was the fault of the Scottish Office, is that not another reason why the Secretary of State's reputation is fast approaching critical nuclear meltdown?

Mr. Wilson: If I knew who the hon. Gentleman was, I would be able to reassure him personally that the Secretary of State's reputation across the political spectrum in Scotland is extremely good, and it is based on integrity over many years in public life. The decision to accept the Georgian shipment was based entirely on our international commitments and it would have been a dereliction of duty not to accept that small cargo when we had the capacity to do so. I am proud of the fact that we in this country are willing to accept our international obligations—and we shall continue to do so.

Miss Anne Begg: My hon. Friend will remember the BBC programme "Frontline Scotland" that exposed last year the existence of the waste shaft at Dounreay and nuclear hot spots on the beach there. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the Dounreay site is safer?

Mr. Wilson: We are doing a great deal. My hon. Friend mentioned the waste shaft. The problems associated with it did not arise after 1 May last year; they developed over many years —and Conservative Members have the brass neck even to raise this issue. The previous Administration completely ignored the problems, presumably in the hope that they would go away or not be noticed. This Government came to power, recognised the problems at Dounreay and acted on the waste shaft, just as we acted on other issues that arose at Dounreay over a long period.
If ever a Government inherited problems that they did not create, and showed that they had the courage to face up to them, it is the present Government, in our response to the problems that had built up over the years at Dounreay.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The Minister will be newly aware of the fact that 75 kg of weapons grade

plutonium will shortly be on its way to Dounreay. Will he now advise us how many other commercial reprocessing contracts are outstanding for Dounreay?

Mr. Wilson: It is the usual stuff from the SNP. To throw in—

Ms Cunningham: It is a straight question.

Mr. Wilson: If it were a straight question, it would not be the usual stuff from the SNP; the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) should listen to the answer. She threw in the words "weapons grade". Is the implication that Dounreay is being used in connection with nuclear weapons? Is that the scaremongering impression that she tries to convey to people watching our proceedings?
What is being done is entirely in line with the commitment that existing contracts would be dealt with. That is the commitment; it is a binding contract, and it will be dealt with. The hon. Lady does no favours with her scaremongering—not to me, not to Members of the House, and above all not to constituents of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) who have worked in that industry for many years and have made a major contribution to the science, technology and economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the Minister's recent visit to Dounreay, what did the shop stewards and professional associations say to him, and what did he say to them, about their future?

Mr. Wilson: I had many conversations during my recent visit. It was a very positive occasion, because it was the occasion of the announcement of a major inward investment in Thurso, as a spin-off from the presence of Dounreay in Caithness. As a result, some 500 jobs will be created by AEA Technologies and its Japanese partners in the manufacture of renewable batteries; that was extremely positive. As always, when I speak to people who have given their life to Dounreay and have contributed so much to the Dounreay economy, they say that they despair of the ignorance, the scaremongering, the hysteria and the utter disregard for the feelings of families in Caithness who have lived with the plant for a long time and have a very much fuller awareness of what goes on there, and has gone on there, than the hon. Member for Perth will have if she lives to be 100.

Dr. Liam Fox: Perhaps I can help the Minister by asking a question to which there is a very simple answer. How far into the decommissioning process will we be able to fulfil our international treaty obligations at Dounreay?

Mr. Wilson: I am not quite clear about the question, but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman addresses it to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it will give him a far more technically reliable answer than he would expect from me at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I wish that anyone who was a member of the previous Government would make the slightest effort to defend the fact that, for 18 years, the Tories allowed the problems of Dounreay to accumulate and did absolutely nothing to address them. The Government are addressing


the problems, but we are also determined to maintain employment for people in Caithness, because we are aware of social and economic factors as well as of the legitimate safety concerns that have been expressed.

Direct Labour Organisations

Mr. Andrew Rowe: What steps he intends to take to regulate direct labour organisations. [45575]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Government will not tolerate incompetence or inefficiency. I expect all councils to look critically at whether direct provision is required, and to put performance and value for money at the centre of all that they do.

Mr. Rowe: What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the appalling problems that have arisen in Scottish local government do not afflict the new Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Dewar: I remain an optimist about the Scottish Parliament, and I am sure that that optimism is shared by the hon. Gentleman, who always has the slight air of a rebel on the Conservative Benches. I do not believe that comparison with local government is relevant. At the end of the day, Westminster's powers will go to the Scottish Parliament; local government will not be raided. The Scottish Parliament will be a policy-making legislative body; local government, essentially, is involved in the provision of local services. I do not therefore believe that the machinery is the same, or that the parallel is relevant.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What effect does my right hon. Friend believe compulsory competitive tendering and local government reorganisation have had on the regulation of direct labour organisations?

Mr. Dewar: The consequences of the last reorganisation of local government—which was very much a pattern imposed by a Government who, however honourably they may have acted, did not command widespread support in Scotland—were undoubtedly a great deal of disruption, financial difficulties and unavoidable expenses that are still being met by council tax payers and taxpayers. That is perhaps an answer for Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen who now worry about such matters.

North Lanarkshire

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If he will make a statement about the current level of non-housing debt in the North Lanarkshire local authority. [45576]

Hon. Members: Hurry up.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): My apologies, Madam Speaker. It is worth waiting for, though—it is all good stuff and a very precise answer. Non-housing capital debt in North Lanarkshire council was –256.8 million at 31 March 1997.

Mr. Sayeed: That is an unusually helpful answer from the Labour party. Did Labour not know about those

problems when Neil Kinnock was Leader of the Opposition, but nothing was done; when the late John Smith was Leader of the Opposition, and nothing was done; and when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, and nothing was done? Only now, when Labour is in government—and because those councillors have served their purpose and got Labour into power—is the Labour party prepared to do anything. For all those years, the people of Monklands and North Lanarkshire have had to pay through the nose for incompetence or worse.

Mr. Dewar: I totally failed to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, which seemed to have many of the characteristics of any early Monty Python without the humour. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the £256.8 million is long-term debt for financing a number of capital projects. There was repayment of more than £10 million in the last financial year. That matter is not in dispute; the situation is under control. Interest payments are, of course, met directly from Government grant. I hope that that provides some consolation for the hon. Gentleman, and that he will go home a rather happier man.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I think the thrust of the Opposition's second question was about the performance of local authorities in general. Will the Secretary of State take the trouble to commend the many local authorities in Scotland that have done a wonderful job in the face of adversity and attack from the Conservatives over 18 years? Will he give the House a possible timetable for the publication of performance indicators that the Government will release? When are the performance plans of local authorities likely to be presented to the public? I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in saying that, in many cases and for many services, they will show the excellent performance of local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: Of course I am glad to pay tribute to the very many effective and hard-working councillors—many of whom are my personal friends—who dedicate themselves to delivering in local government. It is a service to them to try to root out and deal with any abuse that occurs. However, we must be very careful about how we judge such matters. For example, I am informed that Bedfordshire county council, which is Conservative controlled, is running a debt of £120 million in its housing department for the current year. I do not know the circumstances in Cambridge, so I do not condemn that local authority; I suspect that those on the Opposition Benches would sometimes be wise to exercise a similar caution.

Exchange Rate

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the effect of the current exchange rate on business confidence in Scotland. [45578]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I have frequent discussions with businesses in all sectors across Scotland and I am fully aware of the extremely competitive trading


environment that companies face at home and overseas. However, the latest official data show that Scottish manufactured output rose by 7.7 per cent. in 1997.

Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister is aware that exchange rates are influenced to an extent by the level of interest rates, and we have had about seven interest rate rises under the Labour Government. The House will be well aware of my particular concern about manufacturing and textiles. Is the Minister aware that many of his trade union colleagues are deeply concerned about the redundancies that are being declared in Scotland as a result of a range of factors—not least the exchange rate and the depressing state of the textile industry in Scotland, which is an important industry for the Scottish people?

Mr. Wilson: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the textile industry. I know that it is going through a difficult time and that, although there are many successful firms, others are suffering pressures which include the current level of the exchange rate. However, their interests and ours lie in the medium and long-term stability of the economy. If some hard decisions had been taken by the Tories in the last months of the previous Parliament, perhaps the textile and other industries would not be feeling so much pain now.

Mr. Frank Roy: On the question of business confidence, is my hon. Friend aware that I have asked for an inquiry into the running of Motherwell Enterprise and Development Company, whose board called in the liquidators a fortnight ago? Can the Minister give an assurance that local companies that find themselves victims of the MEDCO situation will receive all possible public help at this dangerous time?

Mr. Wilson: We are keeping in close touch with the MEDCO situation, as is the Lanarkshire development agency, which is our instrument of economic intervention in the area. Its first obligation is to ensure that the services and training provided by MEDCO are kept going, in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents and the businesses in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

County Court Services

Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his policy towards the availability of county court services in rural areas. [45600]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In considering the future of any county court, whether in a rural or an urban area, the Lord Chancellor must take into account a variety of factors, including accommodation; work load; the number of personal callers; the number of judicial sittings and costs. A further consideration is the alternative arrangements that could be made for court users after closure, as well as access to those facilities.

Mr. Luff: Does the Minister understand that in the Vale of Evesham there is real gratitude for his decision

to grant a reprieve to Evesham magistrates court, but growing concern about the new proposal to close Evesham county court? Does he understand that the same arguments apply to both courts and that, whenever a rural court is threatened with closure, a rural community is threatened with losing its access to justice? Will he instruct the Court Service to withdraw the proposal immediately?

Mr. Hoon: Clearly, different principles apply as between magistrates courts and county courts, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when, in March, the Lord Chancellor gave permission for public consultation on the future of Evesham county court, a careful process was started. A counter survey of users was carried out between 3 and 28 November and every single person attending the court was asked to complete a questionnaire. Some 246 questionnaires were completed and the results showed that the average daily number of personal callers to Evesham is 12. Of the 246 users, only 76 attended for court hearings and the rest made visits on business that could have been conducted over the telephone or by post.

Magistrates Courts Committees (Devon and Cornwall)

Mr. Andrew George: What representations he has received on his proposals to amalgamate the magistrates courts committee in Cornwall with that in Devon. [45601]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committees decided that a voluntary amalgamation of their two committees was desirable. Consultations took place in April, and 14 responses were received to their proposals. Those responses formed part of the MCCs' submission to the Lord Chancellor requesting an amalgamation. I should also mention that I have received one letter on the matter from a Member of Parliament—not the hon. Gentleman—and my officials have received one letter on the matter from a member of the public.

Mr. George: Does the Minister accept that, under the previous magistrates courts committees amalgamation proposals and the current proposals, although a case can be made for appropriate collaboration and partnership on a professional level, bringing together the magistrates courts committees will involve a great deal of travel and will remove magistrates from their local community, which might favour male and older members in taking up the magistracy and work against younger females?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept any of that. The Government will be concerned to ensure that any amalgamation will result in a more efficient and effective service in the area in question while clearly retaining those aspects of the previous administration that will best serve the new committee. It is the Government's policy that an alignment between criminal justice agencies will lead to a greater consistency of approach throughout the country. Aligned magistrates courts committees, police forces and Crown Prosecution Service areas will assist in the speedier consideration and implementation of national criminal justice policy.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend understand—I say this in the kindest possible way—


that what he has said about Cornwall echoed similar things said by his predecessor in a different Administration? However, in Cornwall, or even in the area that I represent, the result will be less justice delivered locally. I thought that a Labour Government would start turning back some of these so-called efficiencies and drives to better regulation so as to put justice back where it belongs, which is locally, in local communities.

Mr. Hoon: With the greatest possible respect to my hon. Friend, who indicated that he would be kind to me, may I be equally kind in response and say that I do not accept that any of our proposals are likely to lead to less justice delivered locally? We are considering the administration of the magistrates courts. By more effective administration of these courts we may be in a position to save money and thereby preserve local justice.

Terrorism

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What documents in relation to terrorism have been passed to the Lord Chancellor in the proper form under the Great Seal of the Realm. [45602]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): None.

Mr. Dalyell: Among the documents, is there the Organisation of African Unity's resolution of last night, to which I drew the Lord Chancellor's attention, which emphasises that non-compliance is in line with the judgment of the International Court of Justice and is also based on the fact that the resolutions violate paragraphs 3.33 and 36 of article 27 of the United Nations charter? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend accept that because international law is involved it is not sufficient just to pass by on the other side of the road and say, "This is a matter for the Crown Office or for the Foreign Office lawyers"? The whole Government are involved. Would they therefore ask independent international lawyers, possibly in universities, for an opinion? It seems that our country is violating international law.

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the document to which my hon. Friend has referred will be studied with great care by my colleagues in Scotland and in the Foreign Office. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that relevant Security Council resolutions require the Libyan accused to be surrendered for trial either in Scotland or in the United States. At the moment, the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers is not strictly consistent with the relevant Security Council position.
I emphasise also that the evidence in the Lockerbie case has been considered by four Lords Advocate from two different Administrations. Each of them has independently concluded that the evidence justifies the current proceedings.

Legal Aid

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on levels of charges for legal aid work. [45603]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The levels of charges for legal aid work are principally determined under the Legal Aid Act 1988, passed by the previous Administration and no doubt supported by the hon. Gentleman. Within the limitations of that legislation, we are introducing standardised fees where it is legally possible to do so. However, we recognised quickly after taking office that the existing legislation does not afford a satisfactory level of control. That is why we announced last year that we see contracting for the provision of legal services as the most effective means of controlling the cost of legal aid.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and, if I may say so, encouraging response. Does the Minister believe it right that somebody who is well known for his support of left-wing causes, Mr. Michael Mansfield QC, should submit a legal aid bill for £22,000, which was ultimately cut to just £12,000? The fees of his junior, Miss Baird, were reduced from £22,000 to just £7,800. That relates to just three days' work. Is that right? Is it value for money? When will this abuse of public resources be stopped?

Mr. Hoon: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I hope that he and those Conservative Members who appear to support his assertions will support the Government when they introduce legislation effectively to control the costs of legal aid. I also hope that he will be able to persuade Conservative Front Benchers to support the proposals that we have outlined, because the Government are determined to control the costs of legal aid.

Mr. Winterton: Michael Mansfield?

Mr. Hoon: I am not in a position to comment on a case that is currently being considered, nor should I, but I can say that there appears to have been a persistent pattern of overclaiming by members of the Bar. Indeed, statistics that I can publish suggest that, in certain high-cost cases over the past two years, barristers have claimed more than double what they have received.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned only two barristers, whom he considers to be left wing? Michael Mansfield is doing an excellent job in the Lawrence inquiry.
On the general issue, which I have raised at business questions, is it not totally wrong that the most senior QCs receive substantial sums out of legal aid work when so many people are not able to get legal aid? Surely senior banisters should not be so overpaid and should not receive hundreds of thousands of pounds through legal aid work. I hope that the Government will continue to do what they are doing about this matter.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I have made it clear that the Government are determined to get the costs of legal aid under control. He is right: the most expensive cases in the Crown court—the top 1 per cent.—account for more than 40 per cent. of criminal higher expenditure, which is £125 million; the most expensive civil cases—the top 15 per cent.—


account for about 15 per cent. of gross civil legal aid expenditure, at £167 million. That is why the Government are determined to control the costs of legal aid.

Mr. John Burnett: The Government propose to replace legal aid for civil cases with conditional fee agreements. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that insurance premiums for defendants' costs in personal injury cases, which have a high degree of success, have risen in the past year from about £85 to about £161. When the Government's changes have taken effect, in what circumstances will the Legal Aid Board pay such premiums?

Mr. Hoon: It is clearly important that the Government control the costs of legal aid. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recently issued a consultation document setting out in principle our view that the cost of insurance should be recoverable against an unsuccessful defendant. That would clearly go a long way to assisting plaintiffs who bring cases under conditional fees to recover the costs of going to law, and would thereby increase access to justice. We are considering that carefully.

Barristers' Earnings

Mr. Denis MacShane: What assessment he has made of the earnings of senior barristers relative to other professions requiring similar qualifications and skills; and if he will make a statement. [45604]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Each year, the Government, in assessing the level of public sector pay, must have regard to the professional skills and qualifications possessed by different groups. In the past, no regard appears to have been had to the total amounts paid out annually to self-employed barristers out of public funds on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason in principle why the overall amount of public money paid to barristers in any given year should not be open to public scrutiny and debate.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. He read out some remarkable statistics; I had

thought that the previous Government had abolished all closed shops, but one is still very much in operation. Is my hon. Friend aware of the outrage among professional people who serve the state so well in, for example, medicine and higher education? They have to qualify in their profession, work just as hard as barristers and skill themselves just as much, but the amount of money that they receive from the public purse is not remotely similar. I am not inviting my hon. Friend to go on "The Moral Maze" to discuss the matter, but will he at least consider whether the structure within which banisters work should be examined seriously to bring costs under control?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is referring to the position of QCs. The Government have no present plans to abolish that position. This modernising Government, however, have shown that they are determined to sweep away restrictive practices wherever they occur and whenever they cannot be substantiated in the public interest.

Mr. Edward Gamier: I do not want to anticipate anything, but perhaps one day I shall be able to welcome the Minister to the front bench of the Bar.
In addition to planting the question tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), which he answered on 28 April 1998, Official Report, columns 65-67, the Minister said on television at about the same time that senior lawyers acting for legally aided clients were doing "a very responsible job", but that their earnings should be comparable to those of their medical counterparts. Now that the Government have seen the figures for senior consultants' earnings and benefits contained in the Law Society's case before the Committee chaired by the right hon. and noble Lord Browne-Wilkinson, what does the Minister say is the proper level of remuneration for a senior lawyer whose conduct in every case has implications for the future life and welfare of the client and his family?

Mr. Hoon: As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is quite proper for there to be a public debate about the amount of public money that goes into the hands of private sector lawyers. There is a proper public debate about the sum spent on behalf of taxpayers on those employed by the state in the national health service, and I see no reason whatever why the same principles should not apply to those who receive taxpayers' money to fund what are, in essence, private practices.

Temporary Classrooms

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the reliance on temporary classroom accommodation in local authority and grant maintained schools; to place a duty upon the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the number of temporary classrooms in current use; to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament plans for the replacement of such accommodation, other than that necessary for normal fluctuation in pupil numbers, with permanent school buildings; and for connected purposes.
Members of Parliament are privileged to work in reasonable and, one supposes, permanent surroundings. We occasionally complain that our offices are too small—I certainly do—but generally the roof does not leak, the windows fit, and rot is the province of speakers rather than the woodwork. Many hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren do not share that privilege. They are taught in what are euphemistically called "temporary classrooms". Some are perfectly satisfactory, but many are up to 40 years old. So-called huts predominate in many schools. It is a major preoccupation for teachers, parents, governors and for local education authorities, who are only too aware that what they are providing for schools in their area are not up to the standards that they desire.
Some people would have it that the matter is of little consequence—that one need not worry about the surroundings in which children are taught. I disagree. The teaching environment is important to learning. I accept that it is not the only factor and that a good, committed teacher teaching in a field is a better than a bad teacher teaching in a great hall of academe. The fact remains that if one can put together good, committed teaching, a good curriculum and the right surroundings, one is doing the best for the children rather than the second best, as is so often the case.
A proper classroom—one designed for the purpose—enhances rather than detracts from the educational experience. I want children to concentrate on the curriculum rather than on the construction of substandard buildings.
Temporary classrooms, particularly old ones, tend to leak because they have flat roofs that are often insubstantial. They tend to have window frames that do not quite fit, which causes draughts and further leaks. That, in turn, sometimes causes condensation. They are horribly hot in the summer sun and horribly cold in the winter, and they are difficult to heat.
Temporary classrooms also impose artificial constraints on circulation within the school. It is part of the proper school environment that children should be able to pass from classroom to classroom, and circulate around the school, yet children who have the misfortune of being in a distant hut have to put on their overcoats and pick up their bags before they can go to the next lesson. That is a further constraint on the quality of their education. It is also difficult to ensure security in such buildings.
Another good reason why we should not be over-reliant on temporary classrooms is that they cost a packet to run. They are cheap to buy and install, which is the main reason why we have so many them, but they cost more in heating and maintenance and to repair. They are more prone to vandalism: a wooden hut is often a challenge to

adolescent males, who like to see how quickly they can apply their destructive capacity during their school years. As a result, resources are diverted from teaching, books and equipment into keeping those huts in working order. They are economic nonsense for education authorities and for school governing bodies.
How widespread is the problem? The Secretary of State, in his contribution to a debate on the Budget resolutions last year, estimated that there are 25,000 across the country. On a local level, there are 709 temporary classrooms in daily use in Somerset. Last year, I was chairman of education on Somerset county council. At some schools, temporary classrooms represent more than 50 per cent. of the teaching accommodation. There are 390 in primary schools: one in every five classrooms in which a primary school child in Somerset is being taught is a so-called temporary classroom. By 2000, three quarters of those classrooms will have passed their design life—their sell-by date—and will have exceeded the life for which they were designed.
Let us remind ourselves of just how old some of these temporary classrooms are. The oldest are the HORSAs, which were built during the war. They had a design life of 10 years, yet they are still here 50 years on. They are not the worst of the building stock by any means. Some wooden buildings built much later are in a much poorer state of repair.
How can we call these temporary classrooms? They are not temporary: some of them now house the grandchildren of the children for whom they were built as temporary classrooms. It is nonsense. The position is the same around the country: Somerset is not a special case. Many hon. Members have similar tales to tell. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has told me of the Westlands school in his constituency, which has no fewer than 38 temporary classrooms in its building stock. I heard a similar story from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who said that half the classrooms in St. Andrew's infants school are so-called temporary buildings.
How have we got ourselves into this mess? The primary reason is the old British story of short-termism and expediency. Such an approach predates the previous Government and the Government before that: the problem has existed for a long time. It always seemed better to spend a little now to provide a temporary classroom rather than to spend more on permanent classrooms. We have had a litany of capital controls, squeezes on local education authority finances and competing policy pressures—the Audit Commission, when I was on it, called it a policy gridlock that afflicts schools. The answers do not seem to work. The private finance initiative may eventually be able to deliver major school developments, but will it turn temporary classrooms into permanent classrooms? I suspect not. The problem may be exacerbated further by the move that the Government are rightly undertaking to reduce class sizes to under 30.
I acknowledge that the Government have recognised the problem. The Secretary of State has talked of the legacy of disrepair. The White Paper "Excellence in Schools" concentrates on that problem and on the Government's acceptance that it needs to be addressed. I simply suggest that the proposals are not yet consonant with the need—which is why my Bill is important.


My Bill would place clear duties on the Secretary of State not only to recognise the width of the problem but to come up with proper answers to it, in conjunction with local education authorities, so that we have a planned response in removing temporary classrooms from our schools and replacing them with permanent classrooms. I am fed up with so many schools looking like shanty towns rather than educational establishments.
My Bill should be welcomed because, if it finds favour with the House today, it can be repealed in five years' time. If it is passed, the Bill will have done its job in five years, as action to rectify the disastrous mismanagement of the educational estate will have been taken. The ones who will benefit from that action are the next generation of children, who will have proper accommodation for their one opportunity of learning.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Heath, Mr. Bob Russell, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Martin Bell, Jackie Ballard and Mr. Steve Webb.

TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS

Mr. David Heath accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the reliance on temporary classroom accommodation in local authority and grant maintained schools; to place a duty upon the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the number of temporary classrooms in current use; to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament plans for the replacement of such accommodation, other than that necessary for normal fluctuation in pupil numbers, with permanent school buildings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 209].

Orders of the Day — Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 9

INTERACTION WITH SENTENCES OF DETENTION

'.—(1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows—

(a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2),(3),(4)or (5)of section 75 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed;
(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of that subsection.

(2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows—

(a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the 1991 Act, at the beginning of the day on which it is made;
(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently—

(a) to a detention and training order; and
(b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,

he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 75 to 78 above, section IC of the 1982 Act and Part II of the 1991 Act as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion.

(4) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them.

(5) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a manner in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 19, 23 to 25 and 88.
Amendment No. 65, in clause 73, page 57, line 35, after 'child', insert
'over the age of 12'.
Amendment No. 66, in page 58, leave out lines 1 to 6.
Government amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 67, in clause 96, page 79, line 35, leave out 'or a prison'.
Amendment No. 68, in page 79, line 36, leave out 'or (c)'.
Amendment No. 99, in page 80, line 8, after 'apply', insert
'or if paragraph (a)(i) above applies, but paragraph (a)(ii) does not apply.'.
Amendment No. 69, in page 80, line 10, leave out from 'applies' to the end of line 12.
Amendment No. 100, in page 80, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) Where a person has been remanded to a prison under subsection (4) above, it shall be the duty of the local authority social services department in whose area the court which remanded the person is located to inform the Court if local authority secure accommodation becomes available in which the person remanded to prison could be accommodated, and, on receipt of such notification, the court shall be deemed (unless it makes an order to the contrary), to have ordered that the person remanded to prison should be transferred to that secure accommodation.'.
Amendment No. 70, in page 80, line 30, leave out 'or prison'.
Amendment No. 98, in page 80, line 35, after 'himself,' insert
'or the likelihood of him being harmed by others.'.
Amendment No. 71, in page 80, line 36, leave out 'or a prison'.
Government amendments Nos. 29, 89, 58 to 60 and 90 to 97.

Mr. Michael: Grouped with new clause 9 are many amendments dealing with our programme for reform of the youth justice system. I gather that the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—both of whom participated in the Committee's detailed debates on the matter—are largely content with some of the amendments that we have tabled. I shall therefore speak as briefly as possible on the Government amendments and new clause, so that we can move on to dealing with matters that require more debate.
Some of the Government amendments are simply technical, to deal with the necessity of straightening out an anomaly that we have discovered, whereas others are simply a response to points raised in Committee. I shall give two examples.
First, new clause 9 sets out the arrangements that courts will have to follow when sentencing someone who is already under a custodial sentence to a further period of custody under the new detention and training order. The new clause deals with situations in which, for example, a subsequent sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively with the original sentence when that subsequent sentence is passed in either the custodial phase or post-release supervision phase of the original sentence. Some of the amendments deal with technical matters, on which I shall be happy to respond if there are queries. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to delay the House by dealing with those matters now.
Secondly, amendment No. 24 follows up the Committee's debate on whether a compensation order should be available to a court when it is making a reparation order. There was a good deal of discussion on the matter in Committee, in which Opposition Members

argued that a compensation order should be available with a reparation order. We listened to the arguments. After the debate, we decided that those arguments were correct and that courts should have the option of using both orders. Amendment No. 24 therefore sets in train that provision.
I think that those examples give the flavour of the Government amendments and new clause.
Opposition amendments Nos. 65 and 66 would make the detention and training order unavailable for young offenders under the age of 12. As I said when we debated the issue at some length in Committee, that would be unhelpful. Having that provision in the Bill enables the Government to introduce those orders for the under-12s if evidence of the relevant behaviour and demand justifies that in the fulness of time.
Again, we have recognised that the matter needs to be subject to scrutiny, and a Government amendment makes any such implementation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so there would be scrutiny by the House. I think that that deals with the concerns expressed in Committee, but it also means that if there is a case for such an extension, it will not require primary legislation. I hope that what I have said gives a flavour of the way in which the Government have approached the issues.
We appreciate that some people expressed concern at the idea of extending detention and training orders to 10 and 11-year-olds, but I remind the House that, even if we did come forward with evidence of their necessity and satisfied the House through the affirmative resolution procedure, the court would still need to satisfy itself that the offending was serious enough to warrant the use of custody under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 test—that the offender is persistent and that only a custodial sentence is adequate to protect the public from further offending by him. I hope that we can set behind us the debates in Committee, as we have tried to respond to the points that were raised.
We had an extended debate in Committee on the matters covered by amendments Nos. 67 to 71, and I think it fair to refer hon. Members to the Committee Hansard to see how they were debated at some length. However, I shall summarise the issues.
In February 1991, the previous Government outlined their intention to stop prison remands for 15 and 16-year-old boys, but failed to provide the means to that end. Seven years after the commitment was made, the new places are still not fully available to fulfil that promise. The number of 15 and 16-year-olds remanded to prison has increased significantly in the 1990s. Indeed, the number of 15 and 16-year-old boys on remand has not fallen below 200 since January 1996; at the beginning of June, it stood at 228, but it has been as high as something over 300. It would therefore be unsafe to change the remand arrangements for those boys at this stage.
Our policy, set out in the Bill, is to make effective use of the planned accommodation that we inherited and to give the courts the range of remand power that they believe they need. That is why we are introducing court-ordered secure remand to local authority secure accommodation on an incremental basis rather than in the way originally advocated.
The Bill will give the courts the power to remand 12 to 14-year-olds, 15 and 16-year-old girls and "vulnerable" 15 and 16-year-old boys, if a place has been identified in


advance, direct to local authority secure accommodation. The existing arrangements for the remaining 15 and 16-year-old boys will continue for the time being, although we wish to move to a position where the practice of prison remands for such boys is no longer necessary. As someone who has campaigned on that issue before and since entering Parliament, I am keen that we should succeed in that.
I hope that, by speaking briefly to the extensive list of Government amendments and by addressing the concerns that I believe Opposition Members wish to raise, I have helped the House to speed towards the matters that I know several hon. Members wish to take rather longer to debate.

Mr. James Clappison: The amendments tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends relate to important issues regarding young people and custody. Before speaking to them, I should like briefly to comment on what the Minister rightly said about the Government's amendments. He specifically mentioned Government amendment No. 24. He was generous and fair enough to acknowledge that it was perhaps inspired by Opposition arguments in Committee. We are glad that the Government have seen sense on this issue because it is important.
As the Bill stood, it would have been possible for victims of crime to receive reparation from offenders, but that reparation would not have included financial compensation. We believe with some force that many victims, particularly the less well—off, would like financial compensation more than any other form. It is sensible that victims will be able to receive reparation from offenders, which is a useful concept, and financial compensation.
I hope that we shall have a similarly positive response from the Minister on our amendments when he has heard our full arguments—I always live in hope—because we intend to keep arguing on this important subject. Sending a child or young person to custody is a significant decision. Sadly, sometimes courts have to make such a decision, but it has to be carefully made. The subject must be dealt with on the basis of reason and evidence rather than rhetoric. I hope that that approach will not be obscured by too much rhetoric about nipping trouble in the bud. Sending children or young people into custody in inappropriate circumstances or sending them into an inappropriate form of custody is likely to store up trouble for the future rather than to nip it in the bud.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 relate to very young children. The Bill establishes a sentence of detention and training for 12 to 17-year-olds and contains a power for the Secretary of State to extend it to 10 and 11-year-olds. As the Minister has just said, the Government are proposing a change to allow that by an order under the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not satisfied by what the Minister said. We need to examine why the Government are seeking such a power.
We have been told that the Government are actively considering establishing a sentence of detention for 10 and 11-year-olds, and intend to make it possible for such a power to be introduced in the way that the Minister has described. The courts already have the power to send children of that age into custody for grave offences. Sadly, some 10 and 11-year-olds need to be sent into custody for grave offences. There is a long-established power under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 allowing children convicted of grave offences to be sent into custody.
Why do the Government want to go further and send 10 and 11-year-olds to detention alongside older offenders for less serious offences? The Government say that they will introduce such a sentence only if necessary. Where is the evidence that such a power is needed? According to a written answer that I received recently, the number of convictions of 10 and 11-year-olds carrying a custodial penalty went down between 1986 and 1996. I have seen further research in which children were asked about the offence of taking and driving cars. Only a very small proportion of the total started their criminal career at that age. The 10-year-olds did not register on the statistics and the figure for 11-year-olds was only 3 per cent. Against that background, why are the Government proposing such a power?
In opposition, Labour greatly criticised the provision of secure training orders for 12 to 15-year-olds. The current Prime Minister, when shadow Home Secretary, said:
To weaken the provisions in local communities and then to claim that building the new secure training centres will help to prevent juvenile crime is a sham. We know that and I believe that the Government know that as well."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 41.]
That is what the Prime Minister said then. We will come to the Government's record on local provision shortly, but, in the meantime, I observe that a Government who are considering sending 10 and 11-year-olds not to local provision, but to the very same institutions that were denounced as a sham have some explaining to do.
Although the centres have been given a new name—detention and training, rather than secure training—and although they probably have been given a lick of paint, and possibly some spin as well, those are the same institutions which, for 12 to 15-year-olds, the Labour party denounced as a sham as recently as the last Parliament. We do not question the availability of the centres for 12 to 15-year-olds, but we wonder about sending 10 and 11-year-olds to them. That measure was not included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Our concern about sending children of such a young age to such institutions is increased by the fact that this Government, unlike the previous one, are apparently prepared to contemplate 10 and 11-year-old boys being mixed in those institutions with 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. That should give rise to concern, even among those who spoke about "colleges for crime" in the context of secure training centres in the last Parliament. If there is an element of sham about the matter, it is not on the Opposition side of the House.
We need to know more from the Minister than we heard in his opening remarks. He referred to the criteria that would be used for sending very young children to custody. However, the criteria in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are the same criteria which must be fulfilled before any offender of any age—including an adult offender—is sent to custody.
The second limb of the criteria to which the Minister referred—that of further offending—did not even carry with it the qualification that it would have to be offending which, for example, caused serious harm—a criterion used in previous criminal justice legislation. It merely suggests further offences of any type that would carry a sentence of imprisonment in the case of an adult. Those are relatively relaxed criteria, and we need to ask more


serious questions of the Government. We are not satisfied that they have made out a case for sending 10 and 11-year-olds to custody. We would ask for the evidence and the research that justify taking that power.
That brings me to the subject of the remands of 15 and 16-year-old boys to adult prisons. It has been widely accepted that the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons is undesirable, and the Minister—quite fairly—accepted that in his opening remarks. Certainly, the previous Government accepted that view, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided for the ending of that practice in due course. More local authority secure accommodation was to be provided to do that, and a programme of providing more places in secure accommodation was set in train.
A total of 171 places were to be provided. For the benefit of the Minister, I will say that the figure was later revised to 170—so we do not need an argument about that one place. One hundred and seventy places were to be provided to bring the practice to an end. That was firmly set as an objective by the previous Government, and it was enshrined in criminal justice legislation that the practice of sending 15 and 16-year-old boys to adult prisons was to end.
In the last Parliament, the previous Government were criticised by the Opposition, in effect for not getting on with the job quickly enough. When he became shadow Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister chose to campaign strongly on the issue, criticising both the number of places being provided and the length of time it was taking to provide them. Labour's submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on juvenile offending, called "Getting a Grip on Youth Crime", made a particular point on that matter. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it was an excellent document. I should like to remind him of some of what it said. It described the practice of sending 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons as "scandalous" and something which had to be ended at once. The Minister said that he campaigned in favour of that—I do not doubt his good faith—but the tragic aspect is that the Government are doing precious little to bring to an end what they described in opposition as a scandal.
On Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Prime Minister —then the shadow Home Secretary—said that local authorities were "urgently requesting" more places in local authority secure accommodation. He said—he had done his research—that there was a huge demand:
We have made inquiries of the national bed bureau within the past few weeks. It says that there is a huge surplus of demand for secure accommodation by local authorities over supply.
He made it clear that he regarded the provision of more local authority secure accommodation as the way in which to end the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons, and had every confidence about the time scale. He said:
Let me tell the Home Secretary the advantages of dealing with the matter in that way. First, the places could be achieved without delay. This country does not want to wait years before the problem is dealt with. It wants it dealt with now. Secondly, it allows the provision to be both local and integrated, as everybody …has asked for."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 39–40.]
What have the current Government done to address an issue that the Prime Minister said could be dealt with "without delay"?

4 pm

Mr. Michael: The 170 places to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I am glad that the process of education is working—had still not been provided seven years after they were promised; indeed, they have still not been completed. Will he say what the Conservative Government did to revise the estimate that was given in February 1991?

Mr. Clappison: I remind the Minister who is in government now and who bears the responsibility. He criticises us over the fact that not all the 170 places have been provided, but, as he will be able to confirm when he asks those who provide him with information, 160 of those places have been provided, and the balance of 10 will be provided this summer.
The Minister mentions seven years, but if he wants to talk about the rate at which local authority secure accommodation is being provided, how does he judge the record of his Government? They have been in power for one year, but, so far, all that they have planned is the provision of an extra six places. He has said that the 160 or 170 places over seven or eight years is insufficient—he seems to be receiving further conformation of the figures—but hat rate of progress was better than the current Government's achievement of six places in one year, with no plans for further provision. As shadow Home Secretary, the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind the issue, and said that further provision had to be achieved "without delay".

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly report the figures accurately? The six places are additional to those planned by the previous Administration in their arrangements and in their spending plans.

Mr. Clappison: The previous Government's plans were for the 170 places, which the Minister has denounced as insufficient. This Government are providing an additional six places, and I can tell the Minister exactly where they will be: four in Oxfordshire, and two in Merseyside. So much for the local provision for which the Prime Minister called—unless one lives in Oxfordshire or Merseyside, those places are not much use. The Government are providing only six places. We do not think that that is good enough, and we register our discontent.
Our alarm is further increased by the fact that the Bill provides for the continuation of the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons, subject to a screening process that we do not think adequate. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response to the sensible amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), which would provide for an assessment of whether 15 and 16-year-olds are likely to be bullied—the Bill does not seem to provide for such an assessment—and which would allow them to be transferred, when they had been sent to prison, to local authority secure accommodation when a place became available.
The Minister will need to say a little about those matters, and he must try to get himself out of the hole that he has dug himself into through his interventions. I do not blame him personally, because I know his real views on the subject, but, as in so many aspects of the


Government's programmes, even when Ministers have had good intentions they have been torpedoed by other forces within the Government and they are not getting the necessary resources to carry out those intentions. This is a case in point. What is so very worrying is that it is something which the Government set so much store by in opposition. If we cannot trust them on something like this, which the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind, what can we trust them on?
A salutary lesson is there to be learned. The Bill amounts to a retreat from the position taken by the previous Government, who tried to end the practice through their legislation. This Government owe it to 15 and 16-year-olds and to the criminal justice system in general to end it and to make good the commitments that they set out in opposition.

Mr. Richard Allan: I support amendments Nos. 67 to 71, to which I and some of my hon. Friends have added our names. In Committee, a joint liberal alliance formed on the Opposition Benches to seek an enlightened and sensible penal policy. The amendments reflect a common view about how the policy should work.
This is the age-old battle between a sensible policy and the resources required to deliver it. We strongly believe that all sensible people would agree that 15 and 16-year-olds should not be held in adult prisons—by all sensible people I mean the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives on this occasion, the Labour party in opposition, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the chief inspector of prisons, whose thematic report on young prisoners clearly recommended that prisoners under the age of 18 should be held within a separate estate. Our view is along those lines—that the appropriate separate estate for 15 and 16-year-olds held on remand is a place in local authority secure accommodation.
The Government, and the Minister of State in particular, would probably agree with the general principles that I have outlined, and many Labour Members would also agree that it is unacceptable in 1998 to hold 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons. However, we are left with the problem of finding the resources for a suitable local authority estate, which will have sufficient capacity to cope. We are concerned that the likelihood of doing so will recede yet further, because of the general growth in prison numbers and the requirement to find capital funding for new prisons in general as a result of the huge explosion in the prison population, which has far exceeded any predictions made by the previous or present Governments.
If we pass the Bill unamended, we will not give the Government any incentive or legislative kick up the backside to find the resources to put into the local authority secure estate for that vulnerable and important group of people held on remand. The money will continue to be diverted into the gaping chasm that is the demand for new prison places.
All Committee members learned that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is the world expert on local authority secure accommodation. I will certainly not tangle with him or enter into the debate about whether it is 170 or 171 places, or whether it is six new places, eight new or however many. The hon. Gentleman's research has been extensive, and I am sure that the Minister's

officials will have looked at it with as much vim and vigour. Whether we are talking about six or eight, here or there, the net effect is that there are simply not enough places. That is apparent to everyone. By passing the amendments, we would give the Government the incentive that they need to ensure that they provide the places.
The general thrust of the Bill is to tackle youth crime and ensure that young offenders in particular are dealt with appropriately. That thrust will be diverted if we do not take this important step towards getting them out of adult prisons and into their own secure estate, where their needs and requirements can be dealt with.
The adult estate clearly does not have the training, time or resources to deal properly with young offenders who, if their criminal activities are not resolved at that age, are likely to commit significant offences. They are part of the Government's target group.
In case the Minister does not see the light and accept the amendments, we have some questions about the proposals for dealing with vulnerable offenders, which are the Government's way of saying that they can cope with the problem. Our view is that all 15 and 16-year-olds are potentially vulnerable, but the Government say that they can isolate a specific group of the vulnerable. We want to know how screening will work. Bullying has been mentioned already, but we should all be concerned at the number of remand prisoners who—sometimes fatally —commit acts of self-harm. Many of those individuals have passed through screening systems, and I should not like the House to have to receive reports of teenage suicides or self-harm among people who have slipped through a process designed to seek them out.
Are the Government serious about the recommendations of the chief inspector of prisons? Is there a long-term policy commitment, when the Iron Chancellor allows it, to spend the money required to build a youth estate? Or will the Government maintain the status quo, even if resources are available? Is it a question of resources, or of a change of policy?
Will the Minister estimate how many years it will take to achieve the removal of 15 and 16-year-olds from prisons? We hope that the Home Office has made some estimate of the number of 15 and 16-year-olds who will be affected by the proposals, and has some idea of how long it will take to deal with the problem. How will the policy of building a larger secure estate in the local authority sector deliver the goods? At what point can we expect to see the numbers come down significantly?
We await the Minister's response. It is important to set down a marker from the Opposition Benches to show that we are extremely unhappy that 15 and 16-year-olds go into the adult prison estate in 1998. All the evidence from everyone who has considered the problem seriously shows what a significant problem that is. We all want to tackle youth crime and to help individual young people to break out of the pattern of offending into which they have unfortunately slipped.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I shall confine myself largely to my amendments, Nos. 98, 99 and 100. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) put a powerful case for an end to remanding juveniles to prisons. The Minister should seize the opportunity, if only to set a date. There are 170 or so new places, which is


quite enough for him to be able to set a date, particularly given the arguments that I remember him advancing before the election.
A date must be set if the problem is to be resolved. One reason why so many young offenders are remanded in prison custody is that local agencies do not work together sufficiently effectively to find an alternative while a juvenile is actually in court. To set a date would not only concentrate the mind of the Government, but tell the local agencies what they should be doing—in some areas, they are already doing it, and there is no problem—so that the poor performers can be brought up to the level of the best.
By seizing this opportunity, the Minister would do the criminal justice system a power of good. He would do what I know that he knows to be right. It is what he wants to do. He would eliminate a potent source of harm to young offenders remanded in prison, and, although it is seldom said, he would relieve hard-pressed prisons of a difficult and time-consuming responsibility that they could well do without.
I was not totally optimistic before the debate that the Minister would find himself free to do the right thing, as I know he would wish to do. Indeed, I was pretty certain some months ago, after the Minister courteously received me with a delegation from the Juvenile Remand Review Group and he said that he did not think that he would be able to put such a measure in the Bill. I tabled my three amendments in case my pessimism, and his earlier remarks, were justified.
Even with the restraints upon the Minister, I believe that he could find amendment No. 100 useful, although I can see that it would have to be redrafted in another place. I hope that he will accept it with that in mind, and that I have better luck with this suggestion than I had with new clause 8 yesterday evening. I understand why he is apprehensive that there will not be sufficient places in local authority secure accommodation to meet the needs of the courts and local authorities, given the new activities with which the Government are pressing forward. Amendment No. 100 accepts that, and the position from which I believe he starts.
4.15 pm
Amendment No. 100 simply requires that, when a young offender is remanded in prison, the local authority should continue to look for suitable secure accommodation, and that the prison should automatically transfer the young person to it if and when it is found. If, as the Minister fears, there is not room in the local authority system, the young prisoner will stay put. If there is, he will be transferred without delay, cutting through the very inertia in the youth justice system that I know rightly causes the Minister much concern.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman's amendment attend to the regrettably common situation whereby young people appear at short notice before the courts and have to be remanded because, given the paucity of resources, there is often no time to find appropriate secure accommodation?

Sir Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that amendment No. 100 would meet that situation.

A court on, say, a Saturday morning, has no alternatives in front of it, and therefore remands to prison if a remand in secure accommodation is necessary. I spoke earlier about better co-operation between agencies locally. It is a fault of the system that courts can meet at short notice with a young offender perhaps arrested the previous Friday night but not be aware of opportunities to place the offender if it needs to remand in secure accommodation. Amendment No. 100 gives the court the knowledge that, if it remands to prison, the system will not then subside, but will be obliged to continue to search for a place.
My amendment is at fault—I would like it to be changed—in using the word "deemed", which is unsatisfactory. I believe that a court remanding to prison should specify in its remand order a move to suitable local authority accommodation if it becomes available, and require only that it be informed if it were done. That would be clear on the court order. Indeed, it would be the court's wishes that were being carried out.
I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the matter, because it is something which he can do within what he regards as his present constraints. It would be a real help, and would overcome the undoubted inertia in the system that frustrates him and all of us who have been involved in the system, as well as the very people who are part of it. Not merely would they prefer a date to which they can work for remands to prison for juveniles to be ended, but they would appreciate the pressure put upon them by the amendment to continue to seek secure accommodation outside prisons for those whom the courts, regrettably, have had to send there.
There are two other brief amendments in my name. Amendment No. 98, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere referred, would insert in proposed subsection (5A) the words
or the likelihood of him being harmed by others.
One important problem—probably the major problem—of remanding a young person to custody in prison or a remand centre is bullying, which can be enormously damaging. Subsection (5A) says that a young person cannot be remanded to a prison or a remand centre
if the court is of the opinion that, by reason of his physical or emotional immaturity or a propensity of his to harm himself, it would be undesirable".
The Minister may believe that the reference to physical and emotional immaturity covers the prospect or likelihood of being bullied. If it does, I am surprised that the Bill must include the words
propensity of his to harm himself".
A young person who was physically well grown and emotionally well balanced could be bullied, but he would have to be emotionally fairly immature and have other emotional problems if he had a propensity to harm himself.
When closely read, subsection (5A) does not seem to cover bullying. If the Minister can assure me that it undoubtedly does, and that bullying is a reason for which the court can determine that the young person must be held in local authority secure accommodation, not in a prison or a remand centre, I will rest easy. However, if there is any doubt, he could use the simple remedy of inserting into the Bill the words in amendment No. 98.
There is a third amendment in my name, No. 99, which I am not particularly keen to press on the Minister, although I should like him to explain the meaning of a


rather complicated part of the Bill. The amendment would insert in line 7, page 80, after "apply" the words
or if paragraph (a)(i) above applies, but paragraph (a)(ii) does not apply.
The Minister has probably already considered the amendment, and I shall not explain it in detail, because that would take a long time and I would probably muddle my meaning in the process. It is designed to make explicit the flexibility in the choices that the courts have.
I am unsure whether that flexibility is already assumed to be there. If it is, I am not sure that the words allow it. If the Minister has deliberately avoided including such flexibility, I will rest easy. I interpret the Bill as stating that if a young offender falls under subsection (5A), he will go to local authority secure accommodation or he will not be held securely at all, because neither a prison nor a remand centre will be open to him.
Will the Minister explain exactly what the Bill means, and whether it is intended to include that flexibility, which my amendment would make clear? However, if he says that he does not want any remanded young person who falls under subsection (5A) to go to either a prison or a remand centre, I will be content, as I am sure will my hon. Friends.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The remand of 15 to 16-year-olds to adult prisons is a scandal, and a stain on our national character. Both sides of the House should unite in trying to deal with it.
The numbers involved are small. I believe that the latest Home Office figures are that,
in January, 75 15-year-olds and 173 16-year-old boys
were held
in adult prisons, making a total of 248."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 670.]
Surely that is not too high a figure for the Government to deal with.
I remind the Government that, in opposition, the Labour party said:
When juveniles do need to be detained, the secure accommodation system has advantages over any new order proposed by the Government. It offers flexibility since it can be used for a variety of offenders, both sentenced and on remand. It is designed as a local provision, and when adequately resourced will not result in young people being removed to institutions miles from their home.
I should have thought that it would be possible for the Government, if they are prepared to provide adequate resources, to move very quickly indeed to remove all 15 and 16-year-olds from adult prisons.
I remind the Minister that he said of the Bill:
It breaks the logjam that has been in existence for
some time. He said:
some of us drew attention to the scandalous remand of 15 and I6-year-old youngsters into adult prison accommodation. I repeat that that is a long-standing scandal.
Those are not my words, but those of the Minister of State. He continued:
Another scandal was the remand of young offenders to inappropriate and insecure local authority accommodation, where they disrupted the lives of vulnerable youngsters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 665.]
The Minister has waxed eloquent in his denunciation of the former Conservative Minister of State, Lord Patten, for his apparent inactivity on this matter, but Lord Patten did give the initial undertaking to end the scandalous remand of youngsters to adult prisons.
The Minister must live according to his own words. When in opposition, he made it his personal crusade to end this scandal. He now has the power to end the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds into adult prisons, and he must deliver on that pledge; otherwise, he will be found wanting by the House, and he will have reneged on an absolutely specific pledge that he made in opposition.
As I said, the numbers involved are relatively small, although there is some debate about the figure of 170. Will the Minister say exactly how many places are needed? In Committee, he told me that the figures varied. He said:
On some occasions about 250 or 260 places were required. On some occasions as many as 300 youngsters were held in prison accommodation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 666.]
Bearing in mind the figures we have about the number of youngsters currently in prison, and the figure of 300 that the Minister gave me in Committee, it is clear that we are talking about relatively low numbers. As we heard, the Conservatives provided 170 places; the Government have provided an additional six.
Given that the Minister made such a virtue of his support for the provision of extra places when in opposition, is he proud of his record of providing just six extra places? If he tells the House that that extra provision is meeting the problem, I shall be satisfied with that, but he cannot possibly maintain that six extra places are adequate when, according to his own figures, at present,
75 15-year-olds and 173 16-year-old boys are held in adult prisons, making a total of 248." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 670.]
We want some pretty clear details now of what the Government intend to do to fulfil the pledge they made in opposition. We want to know the cost of the extra places, where they are planning to provide them, and the length of time for which they will be provided. As the Minister said when in opposition, it is much better that youngsters are held near their homes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, unfortunately some 15 and 16-year-olds have to be locked up. In Committee, he quoted some facts and figures, which are worth repeating:
One in four defendants granted bail by the courts committed crimes while free… For juveniles, the proportion was one in three, according to the latest Home Office research." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 663.]
Therefore, sadly, the public do need to be protected from these youngsters. No one likes locking them up, but the public must be protected. Equally, it is scandalous that, despite the need to protect the public, these young people—who, although they have committed crimes, are vulnerable—are being put in the same institutions as much older men, and they are presumably thereby being led astray.

Ms Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the solution to the problem of juveniles repeatedly offending while out on bail is not to lock them up but to process the cases through the courts


more quickly in order to get those young people into whatever plan or punishment it is hoped will solve the real problem? The Bill has the correct aim of speeding up the process rather than simply locking up children.

Mr. Leigh: I agree entirely. Anyone who has practised in the criminal courts knows that the worst way to deal with youngsters is to delay sentencing and the expeditious tidying up of cases. It is ridiculous that some cases involving young people can drag on again and again, with several remands. Anyone who has practised in the criminal courts will know that lawyers are as guilty as anyone when it comes to remanding cases continually.
Of course I pay tribute—if that is what the hon. Lady seeks—to current and previous Ministers for their efforts in trying to speed up the criminal justice system. We have been trying to do that in this country for the past 50 years. However, every Government who have tried it have made matters worse. We live in hope that, despite the Bill's high-sounding words, this Government will achieve something.
In answer to the hon. Lady's point, the Minister told us that the House of Lords decision in R v. Khan is relevant. He talked about nipping matters in the bud, and seemed to imply that it would be possible for the Government to reduce the number of places needed by ensuring that there was a quicker justice system, and that—I do not know how—fewer youngsters will come before the courts.
It all seems rather vague. I wish the Government well, but we have heard it all before. The practicalities are quite clear: in the recent past—presumably it will be the same in the future—we have needed to lock up about 300 15 and 16-year-olds in this country in order to protect the public. When in opposition, Labour gave a clear commitment to ending the scandalous detention of those 300 young people in adult prisons. The Minister must now stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver on that promise.

Mr. Michael: I find this debate slightly amusing. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), said that he did not want to hear any more about nipping offending in the bud. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), released from the vow of silence under which he had laboured while on the Government Back Benches before the last general election, came out with a load of total garbage about the efforts that have been made to reduce delay in the youth justice system. He seems to think that there has been a consistent effort over the past 50 years to reduce delay in that system, but that is untrue.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to remember that, when the Conservatives were in government, he marched through the Lobby time after time to vote against practical proposals advanced by the then Opposition, particularly against the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. That is true of youth justice more than any other aspect of justice. The hon. Gentleman is condemned by his own voting record, and he has the arrant cheek to come to the House today and attempt to make a mild criticism of present Ministers.
I assure the shadow spokesman that he will hear a lot about nipping offending in the bud and about speeding up youth justice and preventing some of the evils that the

youth justice system has encouraged in recent years. The hon. Gentleman referred to amendments Nos. 65 and 66, but I answered the point about the need for the age of 10 to be the minimum cut-off in law. I made it clear that we do not intend to implement the use of the detention and training order for 11 and 12-year-olds unless young people exhibit behaviour that is damaging to the security and safety of the community. The House will have an opportunity to decide that matter through the affirmative resolution procedure.
The hon. Gentlemen who have spoken reminded the House of our criticism when in opposition of the way in which the previous Government dealt with secure training places and the secure training order. We were right to criticise, because it was not a targeted use of scarce resources. We are having to sort out the shambles that we inherited, and the Bill contains the means to do that.
I have to tell those hon. Gentlemen who feel free to comment now that they are in opposition that there is some time to go before they can expect not to be reminded of the failings of the previous Government. Just before the general election, after 18 years in office, the Conservative Government excused all sorts of faults and misdemeanours by saying that the previous Labour Government had done this or not done that. After a mere 14 months in office and constrained by the financial arrangements inherited from the previous Government, we have some justification for laying the blame, fairly and squarely, on the shoulders of the previous Home Secretary and his predecessors.
On some issues, especially those relating to persistent young offenders who do tremendous damage to the community, I am worried about some of the approaches advocated by Opposition Members. If we were not being so polite and gentle today, I might accuse the hon. Member for Hertsmere of turning into an old softie as a result of the time spent in the Standing Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: Would it make the Minister's life easier if I apologised for the lack of action on the part of the previous Government in dealing with 15 and 16-year-olds? Can we dispose of that matter now? I apologise; we did not do enough. Now that we have resolved that, will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do?

Mr. Michael: That makes life easier for me, even though it might make it slightly more difficult for the hon. Member for Hertsmere. However, it does not change the situation we inherited. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had issued his apology formally, and not started this debate.
In February 1991, the promise—which I remember clearly, because it was given to me as a Standing Committee member by the then Minister—was to do away with the remand into adult prison accommodation of young offenders aged 15 and 16. I have never blamed Lord Patten, who came forward genuinely with what he believed was a necessary reform, but the fact is that the Government as a whole failed to provide the places necessary to turn that undertaking into a reality. For seven years after the making of that promise, which I and other hon. Members welcomed, the reality failed to keep up with the rhetoric.


I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough will give us credit for having acted immediately on entering government to reform the whole youth justice system, including the system of court orders and the secure estate. I have to tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we do not need a legislative kick up the backside; we have given the system such a kick with the changes that are contained in the Bill unamended. I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman: in Committee, he took care in preparing of his arguments, but now he tells us not to confuse him with facts, and prefers to depend on the research of the hon. Member for Hertsmere.
We are getting on with the job in a variety of ways. We are confronting young offenders with the effects of their behaviour; making them face up to the way in which it damages other people, including their victims; nipping offending in the bud—yes, I shall repeat that for the hon. Member for Hertsmere; diverting youngsters from criminal activity; intervening early; and making sure that mechanisms are in place to deal with young offenders if they continue to offend and to damage the wider community. We have also acted to improve regimes within the prison estate, and to tackle several other issues.
Hon. Members will be aware of the work of the Children's Society; I went to Feltham to see some of that work to move young people who had been remanded in custody out into non-custodial remands. That is an excellent approach, which not only helps individual youngsters, but influences the way in which local authorities and other bodies undertake disposal of young offenders who are awaiting a court hearing.
Also in the Bill is a matter that has not been debated, I presume because hon. Members approve of it—the requirement of bail support schemes, so that we reduce offending while on bail by youngsters who currently have to wait far too long to be dealt with by the courts.
The effect of that should be, first, to reduce the amount of reoffending, and therefore the number of victims created by youngsters whose pattern of offending behaviour continues after they have been brought before the court and remanded. Secondly, it will reduce the likelihood that, because of reoffending, they will have to be remanded into a custodial placement. It is necessary to look at the entire system to understand the way in which the Government are approaching both supply, in terms of the young offenders who require secure placement, and demand, in terms of the courts as well as the availability of places.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is a serious advocate of progress in youth justice matters. He used his best endeavours as a Minister to deal humanely with the system for which he had responsibility. I acknowledge that in opposition he is using his time to examine ways of practically affecting and improving situations. I give credit for that, and it would be a great pleasure for me if I were able to accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. However, I cannot do so, and I need to explain why.
Amendment No. 99 relates only to subsection (4)(b) of clause 96. The effect of the amendment would be that a court could decide to remand to a remand centre if only the first limb of subsection (4) is met; that is, that the juvenile meets the definition of "vulnerability" under new subsection (5A). Currently, it seems that the court will be required to consult the local authority or the probation

service of the youth offending team before it can remand a 15 or 16-year-old to custody at all. The local authority would be able to advise the court at this stage whether the boy is vulnerable because he is immature or likely to harm himself. That is the screening that is required.
Currently there are no remand centres designated for the purpose of receiving such persons on remand. In practice, therefore, if the court is unable to remand under subsection (4)(a), the remand shall be to prison under subsection (4)(c). The amendment does not affect the ability of the court to remand a 15 or 16-year-old boy to prison. It has no practical effect, and is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 100 introduces a new subsection which imposes a duty on a local authority social services department, in the case of a juvenile remanded to prison, to inform the court if local authority secure accommodation subsequently becomes available. On the receipt of such a notification, the court will order that the person be transferred from prison to local authority secure accommodation.
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He raised a similar point when I met him and others in December last year to discuss these issues. He knows that I believe that the amendment is not a necessary provision.
Sections 128 and 128A of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 allow a court to remand a juvenile in custody in the first instance for a period of up to eight days. That seems a reasonable time scale. The social worker, and later the youth offending team, when such teams are brought in under the Bill's provisions—that is not catered for in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment—will need to identify a suitable local authority secure place. Once that has been done, an immediate application can be made to the court. That which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do is not prevented by existing legislation when viewed in the context of the Bill.
4.45 pm
Second and subsequent remands can be for a period of up to 28 days, but a Home Office circular issued last year informed practitioners of changes made to the Magistrates Courts Act by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It reminded them of their obligation to ensure that they take proper account of the welfare of the juvenile. This involves, in particular, the need to keep cases involving juveniles remanded in custody under constant review. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking, and he is right to encourage that approach. I share his view.
The circular also made it clear that the changes did not affect the general right of defendants to make bail applications before the end of the remand period, or the fact that courts were free to set shorter remand periods if, in the circumstances of the case, they judged that desirable. I am happy to reinforce that message. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am happy to work with him and others to try to ensure that we get the best possible disposal consistent with the protection of the public.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while Home Office circulars are important documents, it would surely be more effective to have what I think is generally


accepted as a worthy aim enshrined in law? Would my hon. Friend also accept that continuing to remand 15 and 16-year-olds in custody is in contravention of the Utting report, and will give the Government considerable difficulties when faced with making a report on the implementation of the United Nations convention on children's rights? It is generally accepted as wrong. Should we not be trying to make every possible endeavour to ease the situation, to deal with it and to improve it?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a number of points, and has asked a series of questions, most of which I have already answered. They are generally answered by the Bill. Ideally, 15 and 16-year-olds should not be remanded in prison accommodation. The fact that they are reflects the lack of other secure accommodation to take them on remand. I campaigned before and after entering Parliament for that system of remanding 15 and 16-year-olds to be ended. However, the Criminal Justice Act 1991, by providing for that to end, did not provide for the means of so doing. It allowed only an all-or-nothing end to the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds.
In the Bill, we allow for the progressive ending of such remands. First, we take out vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys. Similarly, we take out girls. We then proceed to 15-year-olds. Progressively, we move to the objective which I wanted to see for eight years, and which my hon. Friend commends to the House. That is the objective, but asking for it is not the same as meeting it. As the previous Government proved, requiring it and putting it in law is not the same as meeting the objective.
I make the same point with the Home Office circular. Working with prison authorities and voluntary organisations, encouraging the work of voluntary organisations to reduce the non-custodial remand of youngsters and encouraging bail support are the way to implement the circular practically. Putting something on the face of the Bill does not necessarily do anything. I think that my hon. Friend would accept that doing it is more important than talking about it.

Mr. Allan: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hesitate to provoke him further in debates that we are trying to keep concise. I was interested to hear him say that he sees the Bill as part of a progression towards getting rid of 15 and 16-year-olds in prison. Can the hon. Gentleman say that the Government are committed to building the 300-odd places to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman misses my point, which is that it is necessary to examine the requirements and to ascertain why they exist. The right hon. Member for Fareham has made the point about the way in which youngsters can be remanded in non-custodial ways that address the evil of reoffending while on bail. I have referred to the prison work being done by the Children's Society to try to demonstrate ways in which that can work, which is proving quite successful. There are some custodial disposals that we should be able to avoid without increasing the amount of reoffending. There is more than one way of dealing with some of the problems.
The progressive ending of the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in prison is one of the Government's objectives. That is one reason why, right at the beginning,

we stated our intention of reviewing the secure estate. On the advice of the youth justice task force, and looking forward to the establishment of the Youth Justice Board, we are examining the best use of that estate in a more flexible way. That is allowed for in the Bill.
I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that we have before us proposed legislation that should not be seen in isolation, but which fits into a pattern of positive activity both to reduce offending by young people, which is the aim of the youth justice system as a whole, and to ensure that custodial and non-custodial disposals are used for that purpose. I am trying to be brief, because hon. Members want to move quickly on to other debates, but I must give way if the right hon. Member for Fareham wants me to do so.

Sir Peter Lloyd: The Minister is seeking to answer my points, but I do not quite follow his answers. I think that he said that there is a duty on local authorities to continue to seek appropriate local authority accommodation for young offenders in their areas who had been remanded to prison, but I am not certain.
The Minister also said, "The process is almost as I would like. They have to go back to the court when they have found a place." Does the juvenile himself have to go to court, and does the court have to sit? My amendment would avoid such pressure on the courts; indeed, it would free them up, and enable the system to work more speedily. I would be unhappy if the paraphernalia of the court had to be called into action, even though the result would be the same.
Setting a date is hugely important. I wish that the previous Government had set a date for ending juvenile remands to prison in the same way that they set a date for the ending of slopping out. They set that date even though everyone who knew anything about it said, "You can't be certain when it will be ready, there are all sorts of expenditures, you won't know how many prisoners there will be, and you will have to release cells so that they can be converted." It was only because a date was set that it happened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going on far too long for an intervention.

Mr. Michael: I may have to speak for another hour and a half to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions. I shall content myself with promising to write to him, but we take no lessons from members of the previous Government on those issues. He wants dates to be set, but we consulted on legislation last autumn, within a couple of months of coming into government; set in train the establishment of the Youth Justice Board, which will oversee the secure estate and the way in which orders are used; and are bringing coherence to the way in which young offenders are dealt with in every part of the youth justice system. We are setting ourselves clear targets, and meeting them.
The right hon. Member for Fareham should reflect on the experience of the previous Government and his period in office before suggesting that we simply set dates by pulling them out of thin air. We are establishing a board which will have responsibility for oversight of the coherence of the secure estate, the way in which youth offending teams operate, and making sure that we achieve the aim of the youth justice system set out in the Bill—reducing offending.
I have tried to be brief, but that has been difficult because I have been provoked by Conservative Members, who occasionally made partisan points and moved on without receiving a response. I hope that I have responded adequately to the debate, and that the Government amendments will be supported, because they will improve the Bill. I also hope that the Opposition amendments will be resisted, because, although some are well intentioned, they would not improve the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REPORTING DUTY

'.—(1) In section 16(5) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (penalties for failure to comply with reporting duty imposed by restriction order)—

(a) for the words "one month" there shall be substituted the words "six months"; and
(b) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 5".

(2) In section 24(2) (arrestable offences) of the 1984 Act, after paragraph (p) there shall be inserted—
(q) an offence under section 16(4) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (failure to comply with reporting duty imposed by restriction order).".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

DRUG TREATMENT SENTENCE

'(1) This section applies where a person aged 15 or over is convicted of an offence which carries a custodial sentence.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the court by or before which the offender is convicted may sentence the offender to a period of custody in a prison or other institution ("a drug treatment sentence").

(3) A court shall not pass a drug treatment sentence unless it is satisfied that—

(a) the offender is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse drugs, and
(b) that his dependence or propensity is such as requires and may be susceptible to treatment.

(4) A drug treatment sentence shall include a requirement ("the treatment requirement") that the offender shall submit, during the whole of the drug treatment sentence, to treatment by or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience ("the treatment provider") with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's dependency on or propensity to misuse drugs.

(5) A drug treatment sentence shall only be passed where the offender signifies his consent to such a sentence.

(6) If the offender fails to signify consent or during the period of the drug treatment sentence expressly or impliedly withdraws his consent, then

(a) if the drug treatment sentence has been passed the Court shall revoke it;
(b) the court shall sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment or detention of not less than three times the length of the drug treatment sentence intended or passed.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 47 to 50, 21, 22, 51, 106 and 53 to 57.

Mr. Malins: I begin, as always, by declaring an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.
I shall focus on a problem that was not known to our grandparents or to our parents, but is known to us and will certainly be known even more to our children. Thousands of people die needlessly and in pain every year because of it, and thousands more suffer. The problems of mad cow disease and acquired immune deficiency syndrome may have a higher public profile, but, in the long term, they are insignificant compared with the problem that hon. Members face in the debate. It is the most critical problem in our criminal justice system— addiction to, deaths resulting from and crime connected with hard drugs.
Hon. Members should come with me to one of the courts in which I sit, and I would show them a typical defendant. There he would stand in the dock, charged with burglary. He would probably be about 25, and would have a difficult, troubled background. When he was about 14, he would have begun to experiment with so-called social drugs. He would then have moved on a little and begun to mix with the wrong sort of people. By 16, he would have begun to use heroin, and would also have begun the steep descent to disaster.
By 18, he would be addicted and his problems would have started, because he would need money to feed his habit. He would have turned to crime, and would have had to have burgled between £500 and £700 worth of goods a week, not because he wanted them, but because he needed to sell them to raise the money to feed his heroin habit.
There he would stand in the dock—a person perhaps from a family unconnected with crime, but taken into crime by drugs. In some ways, he is a wicked and evil figure, but, in others, he is pathetic. In many ways, his plight, despite the misery that he has caused, is not his own fault. If they came to court with me, hon. Members could listen to the probation officer standing next to him, who would vainly say to the court, "How can you help?" They could listen to his barrister, who would say, "My Lord, don't send him to prison, because if there are drugs outside there are more inside." It is a vicious circle.
Let me put flesh on the bones of my remarks. Fact: more than 50 per cent. of property crime is linked to hard drugs. At least 25 per cent. of prisoners had taken hard drugs in the month before going to prison, and 20 per cent. of those arrested in London are on hard drugs. This is a cruel and wicked problem, and we must grapple with it and decide on it. Our young man may go to prison. He would cost us £25,000 a year at least, and he would cost the country a lot more in misery. This country should be ashamed that it is top of the league in Europe for young people dabbling in drugs.
I have set the background, and hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to recognise that the problem of hard drugs and crime, and the link between the two, is the greatest single issue facing the criminal justice system. If it is not resolved, absolute disaster lies ahead.
5 pm
Clause 61 provides for drug treatment and testing orders. I read it with interest. The Labour party has honourable men and women whose intentions are good. Throughout the House of Commons, there is a feeling of unity about the need to tackle the drugs problem, although it may be a question of differing degrees of how to go about it. The clause on drug treatment and testing orders effectively requires a defendant whom the court believes is addicted to drugs to submit to treatment and testing. The key point is that that person would have to attend either as an out-patient at some form of institution—probably a probation hostel or hospital—or would be asked to be resident within such an institution for the purposes of treatment. That requirement does not go far enough.

Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is expressing the view of a lawyer? Some Labour Members will take no lectures from the Opposition because we represent areas that have been torn apart by hard drugs. We need no lectures from lawyers about the consequences for the whole community.

Mr. Malins: I apologise to the hon. Lady for being a lawyer, but I do not seek to lecture her; nor do I think that my judicial experience makes me unqualified to comment. In the same way, I do not deny her ability to comment. She should not misunderstand me, because we are on the same side.

Ms Keeble: We are not.

Mr. Malins: In that case, the hon. Lady differs from her own Front Bench, who have had many constructive discussions with me about the approach to the drugs problem.
I was saying that clause 61 does not go far enough because it imagines a defendant being resident in the community and attending an institution for treatment. One should go to court and look at defendants. A defendant who burgles and robs late at night to feed his serious addiction cannot be allowed liberty. If such a person is put out into society under a condition to attend for treatment, he poses too much of a danger and is unlikely, in the real world, to turn up for treatment. That is a critical failure of the clause.
Thus, my charge against the Government is not that they do not care—they do. It is not that they lack good intentions—they do not. It is that their proposal is not tough enough.
My new clause differs from that of the Government in that it recognises the gravity of the problem and says that
where a person aged 15 or over is convicted of an offence which carries a custodial sentence
and if the court is of the opinion that the person
is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse drugs,… and may be susceptible to treatment
that court may sentence the defendant
to a period of custody in a prison or other institution".
There is a degree of compulsion and containment, that in that prison or institution the person should accept the treatment offered. If he or she fails to accept the treatment —fails initially to accept the order—draconian penalties will follow: an ordinary sentence of

imprisonment of at least three times the length of the drug treatment sentence that would have been passed. It is a way of saying to a defendant, "You will go into custody where you will be treated and if you do not co-operate, the consequences will be severe." I believe that the country would want that.
Let us all work towards a future in which prisons are drug free. I said at the beginning that the barrister in court begs the judge not to send the defendant to prison because drugs are so freely available there. Successive Governments have failed to get a real grip of that problem. Drugs in prison must be stamped out.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I agree with much of what he says, but clause 62(2)(a) requires that drug treatment and testing be carried out
in such institution or place as may be specified in the order".
Subsection (2)(b) provides that a defendant may be non-resident, which allows for the prospect of electronic tagging or other mechanisms. I therefore do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint.

Mr. Malins: Let me explain the difference between us. I believe that the toughest approach is needed in terms of drug treatment and testing procedures, and that during those procedures, the defendant should be in custody at a prison or other institution of a prison nature, rather than resident in an appropriate hospital that is not secure, a probation hostel or a similar institution.
My new clause seeks to introduce a little compulsion into the relevant treatment.

Sir Robert Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with those who work in drug treatment about how effectively they could treat someone who might have made a choice based on the threat of a sentence that is three times the length of the drug treatment, rather than on a genuine commitment to take on the treatment?

Mr. Malins: Yes, I have had discussions with those who run such services. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In certain sections of the public sector that are involved in that work, my new clause has not received universal approval. Some recognise the difficulties of what I suggest, and others support it.
As regards those who support my argument, it was not long ago that the Home Affairs Select Committee had before us a number of experts to discuss the problem of drugs and how addicts should be treated. On a date in March, we had before us a representative of the metropolitan stipendiary bench, a leading clerk to the justices and a leading lay justice. I asked the metropolitan stipendiary magistrate:
Do you think that we are moving to a stage where… some form of compulsory detoxification for drug abuse is necessary?
He replied:
Yes, I think we are. The word that I should use is 'coercion' rather than 'compulsion', but it is a fine line. There are reasons for saying that some form of coercion is necessary. The old theory that you cannot succeed in removing the drug problem unless the individual is willing to co-operate is a valid one but it only goes part of the way. I believe that an element of coercion that is applied to those who either dither or are willing to consider coming off


drugs can be applied by the courts. Quite how it can be done I am not clear, particularly in view of the cut-back in drug dependency units and funding.
On the point which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) and others made about treatment in the community as opposed to in custody, a little later during the same Home Affairs Select Committee meeting, one of the most senior lay justices in this country said:
At the moment, one of the problems about the places that are being used for drug-addicted parents who come before the family court is the number of treatments that are begun and then dropped. They hardly get over the first hurdle before they drop out. The amount of money wasted is immense. Very often a place has been found and an interim order is made to see whether it works. The person stays two weeks and then walks out or is asked to leave because it is obvious that he or she is still using illicit drugs. I have no idea to what degree the facilities and the money that is spent on them is wasted, but I imagine that it is substantial.
That is one of my worries about the Bill.
I am also concerned about treatment of hardened criminals in the community. The lady lay justice said that she sits in a court about 15 miles from the centre of London. She said:
We have one of the drugs treatment centres in our area… People go there daily for an administered dose of methadone. Some research shows that those people are helped to some extent. The downside is that they attract into the town an enormous number of drug-pushers and a very large amount of drug-related crime. There are those who take the methadone but want to go out and buy illicit drugs, or steal to buy them. It is a big problem. These drug-testing sentences will not be the answer to a maiden's prayer.
It is most unlike me—the Minister once kindly accused me of being a liberal thinker —to suggest such a harsh regime, but the House should consider a measure that would place people in custody where they would be treated almost against their will, and if they did not co-operate their position would be made worse. As the Minister knows only too well, in the United States some people, who are virtually in confinement, are administered drugs to help them get off heroin. An experiment has been carried out with the drug naltrexone. Huge numbers of people have been given that drug compulsorily and have been liberated from their heroin addiction. To liberate people from heroin is one of our great tasks in the months ahead.
We owe society a great deal. We owe that young man a great deal: we owe him the chance to get off drugs. I know the young man who says, "I want to be cured. I am going to try to go to the centre for treatment. I'll do my best, but it's not easy." I have seen him dozens of time in court. He will probably fail. Young men like him fail because there is no big stick to ensure that they go for treatment. It is sometimes necessary to help people who cannot help themselves.
I tabled the new clause for two reasons. First, we need to have a debate that focuses on this most serious problem in our criminal justice system. It is a good thing to have such a debate. Secondly, I believe that in the months and years ahead we must have a continuing cross-party discussion—there is no residue of wisdom in my party, any more than there is in any other party—to try to win the war against drugs. If we treat the problem as anything less than a war we are letting down not only our people now, but those who are yet to come.

Mr. Michael: The Government amendments in this group enhance the provisions of the new drug treatment

and testing order by dealing with some practical issues. I should be happy to go into more detail, but I shall again show restraint and simply commend them to the House. I shall respond to hon. Members who want to raise any queries about the amendments, but I think that they will be agreed to without dissent.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is almost always entertaining and thought-provoking, but today he was slightly confused. He began by saying that the House was united on this issue, and then he attacked and indicted the Government. He said that we were not being tough enough. He is right to say that I expressed some surprise: I heard him in Committee seeking to limit the Government's ability to protect the public and to tackle the problems of anti-social behaviour that damage our communities. The hon. Gentleman is unable to make up his mind whether he is an old softie or wants to be tough on people who cause so much crime.
5.15 pm
The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the point gently put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). He invited us to go to his court. We should invite him to come to the town and city neighbourhoods and to the housing estates that have been devastated by drug-related crime. We need no persuasion about the social damage caused, which is why we have given such priority to the problem of drugs and drug-related crime, and why we have proposed the treatment and testing order.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the failure of treatment in many circumstances. It is because of that failure that we have introduced the drug treatment and testing order. By contrast, the hon. Gentleman's proposition is not practical, although I understand the motivation behind it. His new clause would introduce a totally new concept in sentencing. It would add an additional requirement to a term of imprisonment, and if that requirement were not complied with, it would lengthen the term of imprisonment.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's intentions. He attempts to replicate in the prison setting our plans for a drug treatment and testing order in the community. Unfortunately, that will not work. The drug treatment and testing order will rely for much of its effectiveness on the likelihood that the offender will be sent to prison if he fails to comply with the drug treatment requirement. We seek the offender's agreement, but the testing is compulsory and he knows that the courts will take a dim view if he fails to comply with the requirement.
If the offender is already in prison that incentive does not apply. The new clause attempts to solve the problem by threatening to make the length of the sentence at least three times as long if he does not comply with the treatment requirement. Unfortunately, that approach will lead to staggering injustice. Suppose someone is sentenced to seven years for a drug trafficking offence and he does not give or withdraws consent to treatment. Under the new clause, the court must resentence him to 21 years in prison. That means an extra 14 years imprisonment for failing to take a course of treatment. Does anyone seriously consider that that would be a proportionate response?
I firmly believe that the way forward lies with drug treatment and testing orders. The Prison Service has produced an imaginative and new strategy to respond to


the needs of those drug misusing offenders whose crimes are so serious that a custodial sentence must be passed. Treatment is available in the prison setting. Offenders have many incentives to benefit from it, including the chance of becoming drug free and the prospect of family life and employment after release.
Much still needs to be done to tackle the problem of drugs in prisons. The Prisons Minister is pursuing this matter with vigour. Prison staff take drug misuse in the prison setting very seriously. Almost 13,000 prisoners were referred by staff to be drug tested last year because they were suspected of misusing drugs.
The problem with the new clause is that it is unjust, unworkable and unnecessary. I know that it is not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but it would be wrong of me to ask the House to accept it. I ask hon. Members to support our proposals as a real and practical way to make progress. This is only one of the many practical measures that the Government want to take to tackle the scourge of drug misuse and drug-related crime.

Mr. Malins: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and do not intend to press my new clause to a Division. I know that the Minister will have taken on board everything that has been said in this debate. I am also sure that he and I will have many dialogues on the matter in future.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 1, line 12, leave out '10' and insert '16'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 147, in clause 19, page 15, line 43, at end insert—
'Such an order shall specifically state the geographical extent and duration of, and the occupations or activities covered by, the order.'.

Mr. Beith: Our amendment would increase from 10 to 16 the age at which someone could be subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The amendment follows lengthy debates in Committee on the merits and potential pitfalls of such orders. We do not oppose the orders in principle, as they could prove to be a useful tool in preventing some types of behaviour, but we have a number of widely shared concerns about them.
One concern about the orders is that the Bill's definition of "anti-social behaviour" is very broad and vague and could potentially draw in those who are merely eccentric or extraordinary, or draw in people for trivial or unintentional acts. Although Ministers have said that catching such people is not the intention of the provision, it is difficult to be sure that that intention will be realised when it has been so broadly stated in the Bill.
In making the orders, the standard of evidence applied will be the much weaker civil one, yet an order may lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions—thereby reinforcing our first concern. Moreover, the sanctions themselves are high—up to five years' imprisonment.
The real paradox that emerged in Committee—leading us to table the amendment on Report—is that, in Scotland, the Government accept that it is not appropriate for children under 16 to be subject to anti-social behaviour orders. Indeed, the Government went so far as to resist amendments tabled in Committee by Conservative spokesmen that would have made anti-social behaviour orders in Scotland apply to young children. I should say that, observing the matter from Berwick-upon-Tweed—looking up one end of the road and down the other—I found that paradox and emerging difference quite extraordinary.
The argument against extending the scope of the orders in Scotland was that Scotland already has in place for young people the children's panel system, which provided a more appropriate mechanism. Fine; we agree with that. We like the children's panel system and think that the Government, in their review of youth justice, should be building on the example of that system and incorporating some of its good features into the youth justice system in England and Wales.
We should be drawing on the best practice of the Scottish system, which has now had many years of proven experience and quite notable success in dealing with matters in a better way than our system—a system which has essentially grown out of the adult justice system, rather than being thought out from scratch as the Scottish system has been. The Scottish system was a radical one when it was introduced and has had time to prove itself. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office is in the Chamber, and I am sure that he agrees with me about the merits of that system.
Meanwhile, in the parts of the Bill applying to England, is there a real problem if the Government do not provide for children potentially to be subject to anti-social behaviour orders? Suppose that Ministers accepted my argument and said, "When we have reformed youth justice, we will not need those orders for children at all." Will there be a problem if we do not have such orders until we have reached that stage? I submit that there will not be a problem. Young children can be dealt with in other, usually much more appropriate, ways, some of which—child safety orders and the work of young offender teams—are in the Bill. Various mechanisms are available to deal with young children.
Ministers themselves must realise that, in most cases that one could imagine, it is inappropriate for the mechanism of anti-social behaviour orders to be used for 10, 11 or 12-year-old children. I should like some assurance from the Minister that it is not intended that the orders should be used extensively for young children. If he thinks that they will be so used, will he give the House some examples of the circumstances in which he expects them to be used where alternative measures are not available?
Will the Minister reflect on and compare the Scottish arrangements with anti-social behaviour orders? Although I see merit in the argument that, in many cases, the children's panel system provides a better mechanism for dealing with youngsters than taking youngsters before the


court, I still think that the mechanisms by which we initially deal with young offenders in Scotland and in England will not be that different. Similar powers will be used in both Scotland and England immediately to address concern about an offender's behaviour, although the body—the diet, in Scottish terms—to which that offender will be taken will be different in Scotland and in England.
If what the Minister says tonight is consistent with his comments in Committee, he will say that the Government do not intend that the orders should be used widely for young children. I should like that to be made clear. I think that, from now, on grounds of principle, it would really be much better if we followed a consistent practice in the matter between Scotland and England, as the Government's argument on Scotland—with the one exception of the children's panel procedure—holds good for England, too.

Mr. Michael: I should like first to commend amendment No. 13 to the House. It is a small technical amendment, which we have tabled to meet concerns expressed in Committee that it was unnecessarily restrictive to provide that anti-social behaviour orders should contain prohibitions applying only to the local government area in which the application was brought. The amendment would allow agreement to be reached in cases in which an activity perhaps occurs across local government boundaries. I believe that both Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen will welcome the fact that, on reflection, the Government have agreed that it should be possible to deal with such situations, and will accept that amendment No. 13 represents a positive response to aspects of the debate.
Hon. Members who participated in the Committee stage will recall that the minimum age of 10 was subject to a lengthy debate, and that Committee members made a strong case for the proposal now contained in amendment No. 74. I still think that they are wrong. Let us consider the situation of the "family from hell", in which the adults are involved in anti-social behaviour that threatens and intimidates the neighbourhood, and in which the younger children are very often used by their parents and older relatives as the "deliverers" of some of the harassment, damage or even injury to those in the neighbourhood. Neighbours' children can be followed or threatened by the younger children in such families.
As hon. Members will be aware, police officers often have experiences in which youngsters under 10 say, "You can't touch me, Mister." Such youngsters know that they are below the age of criminal responsibility. We have addressed the issue of such behaviour by those below the age of criminal responsibility in clause 11, which provides for child safety orders, so that—in the interests not only of the wider community but of the child—the behaviour can be dealt with and nipped in the bud.
If we are to tackle anti-social behaviour by a family or group of individuals, it is necessary to have an order against each member of that family or group. People over the age of 10 should therefore be eligible for the anti-social behaviour order. To raise to 16 the minimum age at which an anti-social behaviour order may be imposed would leave a gap between those who can be dealt with under the provisions of clause 11, as they are under the age of 10, and those over the age of 16.
I should be quite happy to respond to the request by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for clarification on use of the orders. It is

not the Government's intention that anti-social behaviour orders should generally be used for younger children. However, there would be an anomaly if a family's younger members, who are perhaps being used by older family members, could not be placed under equivalent requirements so that there is equity and so that the same provisions apply to all family members.
I should like also to allay fears about juveniles being dealt with in adult courts. Part III of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will apply to the orders and contains important safeguards. The position concerning juveniles will be clearly stated in guidance that will be issued later this year. We made a first draft of that guidance available in Committee. Currently, we are revising the guidance in the light of discussions in Committee and of comments from other organisations. If the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed requires any further clarification on the points that he made in moving his amendment, I shall ensure that it is provided.

Mr. Beith: The Minister describes a scenario in which he sees it as advantageous for the law enforcement authorities to put everyone—adults and children from the same family from hell—on the same sheet of paper. Of course, the family members then have to appear in separate courts—the magistrates court and the youth court. In Scotland, where it is not thought necessary to put all the names on the same sheet of paper, the children will be dealt with by the children's panel, and the adults will be dealt with differently. There is already a distinction in the procedures followed. I think the Minister may be chasing some illusory law enforcement tidiness if he thinks that having all the names on the same sheet of paper is somehow advantageous.

Mr. Michael: Clearly, there are obvious differences in jurisdiction as between Scotland on one side of the border and England and Wales on the other. I am trying to address realities. Many of us have had experience of the police and local authorities being powerless to deal with a serious situation and to prevent further anti-social behaviour. As I explained in Committee, there was an attempt in Coventry to use the present system of injunctions to achieve that end.
A particular family was placed under an injunction not to continue the behaviour that was causing harassment and fear in the local community. As a result of that injunction, such behaviour lessened, not only on the part of the family placed under the injunction but on the part of other families on the estate and, indeed, in other parts of Coventry where it was seen that the police and local authorities were determined to take action and that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The problem was that, as a result of an appeal, it was found that such action went beyond the intentions in law for the proper use of that type of injunction. That is why we have to design a measure to deal specifically with anti-social behaviour.
The whole point of the order system is to prevent further anti-social behaviour by each individual who is named on an individual order. It would be very odd to place some members of a family under the requirements of an order, but to leave others free to be used by the older members. I have specific examples in mind. When I spoke to police and local authorities and, indeed, to my


Back-Bench colleagues, many examples arose where having an order for all a family's members would be desirable. For example, I visited an estate with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to talk to the local community and the police. We discussed a case which clearly we cannot debate in the same way in the Chamber.
I am clear that we need to catch all the targets. If the court decides that it does not need to make some of the younger members of a family subject to an anti-social behaviour order, it does not need to do so, but it should have the freedom to address the problem on the basis of the evidence made available to it.
The intention is that the order being made and the severe punishment available for the breach of an order will not simply lead to many people being punished, but will lead to some of the offending behaviour ceasing, and other people being allowed to live more secure and peaceful lives.

Mr. Allan: We understand the Minister's point about a family grouping—there is a rationale behind it—but what will happen to a group of, for example, 13-year-olds who hang around causing minor criminal damage or writing graffiti? We want it made clear that, although their behaviour is reprehensible, they will continue to be dealt with in the normal way, and that it is not the Minister's intention that anti-social behaviour orders will be used against them, which is exactly what some people expect will happen.

Mr. Michael: I think it is unlikely. It might be possible to construct an extreme case in which it might be appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman is right—it would be unlikely that anti-social behaviour orders would be used in such circumstances. However, one or two people—perhaps 18 or 20-year-olds—might be associating with a couple of younger children who, under their influence, were indulging in anti-social behaviour. They clearly do not form a family group; it is simply that I can think of examples where it was family groups that were causing a problem that needed to be dealt with in order to protect the local community.
I hope that in my response to the serious points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and in supplementing the very full and useful debates that we had in Committee, I have teased out for the House the Government's intentions in introducing the anti-social behaviour order and for retaining the lower age of 10 as the cut-off point in England and Wales. The fact that these debates have taken place will assist us in ensuring that the guidance offered to the courts on the use of anti-social behaviour orders is precise.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak briefly to amendment No.147 to clause 19, a clause which relates specifically to Scotland. It is a probing amendment directed principally at subsection (3).
I do not think that there will be much disagreement with the Government's general proposals. All Members of Parliament—I am no exception—know of people who, to a greater or lesser extent, suffer because of the anti-social behaviour of their neighbours, but I should like

the Minister to tell us precisely what he expects an order to contain and, more to the point, what factors he would expect the sheriff to take into account when imposing the conditions.
The Minister will be aware that some people live in blocks comprising four flats or in even higher-density housing. Such accommodation imposes its own difficulties when orders are placed on individuals in respect of their behaviour. Indeed, I am dealing with a case where there are enormous disagreements between neighbours living in a "four in a block". I am having some difficulty envisaging how the conditions of an order can be drawn to deal with that scenario, especially when the conditions would presumably relate to proximity or geographical, physical factors. Will the Minister go into a little more detail about precisely what he would expect the sheriff to consider?

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to this debate, especially as I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I come to this debate with an interest stemming mainly from a number of years spent as a magistrate in what was then known as the juvenile court and is now known as the youth court. I hope also to give some practical examples from my own constituency where, in a voluntary way, some of the orders set out in the Bill are already in operation.
I fully support the Bill's provisions and will comment especially on the clauses concerned with curtailing anti-social behaviour. These measures must be implemented if we are effectively to protect people from harassment and disruption in their daily lives. My post bag over the past year has shed light on the fact that these measures will come as welcome relief to many people, especially older people and those on some estates in Halesowen and Rowley Regis who have been victims of anti-social behaviour by young people, some of whom, I regret to say, are as young as eight or nine.
I believe that it is high time that we, as elected representatives, took responsibility for dealing with the very real problem of youth crime and anti-social behaviour, which causes many law-abiding citizens such huge distress. The Bill is a welcome step in tackling youth crime, providing a clear strategy to prevent offending and, equally important, reoffending, by young people. For the first time, moreover, the Bill includes measures to make sure that it is not only the offenders themselves but their parents—through the new sanctions of parenting and child safety orders—who must face up to offending behaviour and take responsibility for it. Parents who do nothing to prevent their children from behaving in an anti-social manner, or, indeed, who allow them to run riot, will at last be brought to account by these measures. It is morally and ethically right that the onus be placed on parents to accept responsibility for their children's misbehaviour. Parental neglect of this kind is not fair on the children or on the people who become victims of the children who turn to crime.
In one part of my constituency, the police and the special constabulary have already been making valiant strides to place greater responsibility on parents. Last year, "Operation Guardian", which commenced across South Sandwell, targeted public nuisance and anti-social behaviour by youngsters. The police consulted community groups, tenants associations and police


consultative committees before the scheme began. Directed patrols concentrated on areas identified by complaints from the public at times that were relevant to the nuisance occurring—with the intention of resolving the problem, not just dealing with the incident.
Often, the problem related to the activities of young people congregated in groups, but there were also more serious offences by neighbours, including assaults and criminal damage. Sometimes advice to the people concerned was a suitable response to an activity. If that was accepted positively, the problems could be resolved by such action alone. If it was not accepted, letters were written to parents seeking their involvement to exercise parental responsibility. Many of the parents responded positively to being informed about their children's behaviour.
The operation was highly successful, leading to 600 calls between May and September last year and a substantial fall in reported cases of nuisance behaviour. The Bill and the Government amendment will give greater impetus to such operations by formalising and rationalising them in a statutory framework. In the words of Superintendent Baxter, they will provide a "package of opportunities" to deal with such incidents.
I also welcome the power to impose curfews in areas identified by local authorities and the police as particular hot spots for trouble. I fully support the Government's initiative in introducing that bold step in a bold Bill. Local authorities should have the power to introduce local child curfews to address the problem of unsupervised, disruptive children on the streets late at night. Young offenders and their parents will be held accountable for causing disruption and, as it applies to children of 10 and younger, the measure will protect very young children from being drawn into criminal and anti-social behaviour—the so-called sub-criminal activities that can often spiral into serious crime later.
The sanctions that the police, acting in co-operation with local authorities, will have will protect the community from nuisance and harassment caused by youngsters and by anti-social behaviour generally, including that induced by drink or drugs. Replacing repeat and inconsistent cautioning with a final warning strategy is a welcome deterrent. We should be tough and consistent in our punishment of those who regularly cause emotional—and sometimes physical—pain to others.
In my constituency, great strides have already been made to tackle youth crime and social disorder on a multi-agency level. South-west Sandwell community initiative has successfully maintained the partnership approach, and strong links have been forged with the voluntary and statutory organisations in the constituency. A number of community safety initiatives have been supported through the project and have proved very successful in resolving local problems. The main focus of work with young people has been through a detached youth work scheme. That youth work has been issue-based, providing young people with an opportunity to examine their behaviour and increase their awareness of the choices available to them.
I should like to cite two examples of the success of the project in focusing young people's attention on their anti-social behaviour. In Cradley Heath and Old Hill, the recorded incidence of criminal damage and arson fell by 37 per cent. after the schemes were put into operation.

On an estate on Grange road, reported incidents of nuisance behaviour fell from more than 200 to just four between April and August 1996.
The work of the police has been significantly helped by support from local community residents. Community organisations, the police and local businesses have come together and succeeded in reducing youth crime. Local people have acknowledged a change in the quality of life in the area.
Important though all the orders are, I am pleased that the Government are not introducing the measures in a vacuum. Tackling youth crime effectively requires a twin-track approach. We need effective powers and sanctions against offenders, and responsible and consistent social policies to ensure that being a young offender does not become an integral part of growing up. I support the Government's strategies for combating unemployment, drugs, failing schools and low educational achievement.
Reducing youth crime and disorder is about local authorities, the police, schools, parents and the community working in partnership. Voluntary and non-statutory schemes in my constituency have proved successful. We have to adopt legislative measures to give the relevant authorities the teeth to stamp out a problem that has been caused in part by the policies of the former Government and the social neglect over which they presided in some of our most deprived areas.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) spoke powerfully. I wish that things were as easy as she makes out. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a more thoughtful speech, because he revealed a problem. We all know about the family from hell. I have followed the Minister's comments carefully today and in Committee. I understand what he is trying to achieve with families that may be out of control.
We should define our terms carefully. We can do no better than to refer to the oracle himself—the Minister—who described in Committee the aim of the orders:
Essentially, the orders are to be used for criminal or sub-criminal activity—to tackle serious, persistent, anti-social behaviour that affects a community, causing one of more persons harassment, alarm or distress. They are not intended for run-of-the-mill disputes between neighbours, petty intolerance, minor, one-off disorderly acts or the penalising of the merely eccentric. That is why the breach of an order would be a criminal offence.
Later he said:
We think it unlikely that an order would be sought against a child unless his behaviour was part of the behaviour of a wider or older group."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 48-53.]
We have the definition of an anti-social behaviour order, and we know that such orders will be directed not at individual children, but at the family. The Minister made clear in Committee the danger of introducing children to courts gradually, because they can become case-hardened with repeat appearances. I share that point of view, based on my practical experience. We have to be very careful about taking a child to court. I understand that the provision will be used only rarely, when it is the only way to deal with a family.
However, I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point about the children's panels in Scotland. I do not know the details of the Scottish situation, but I understand


from the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) that the panels are informal, effective and successful. I do not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the point of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on that.

Mr. Michael: No, I did not. My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office may be able to give more information about the Scottish system when he responds. The White Paper on youth justice and our proposals on youth offending teams and the final warning show that we are looking at ways of introducing measures that have succeeded elsewhere in a way that fits in with our methods for dealing with juveniles in England and Wales. We want to deal with matters more effectively.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that response. We are trying to resolve the problem of families from hell, but we are trying also to avoid dragging young children—we are talking here about 11-year-olds—through the criminal justice system. Would it be possible for the order to apply to the adult but—in the way in which it was framed and the injunction that it laid on the adult—instruct the adult, in some shape or form, to control his children? If so, the order would be directed against the adult, and the child would not be dragged through the courts, but the problem would be dealt with. I should have thought that that was a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Michael: If it is a question of parenting, the parenting order forms another part of the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that response. However, it opens up a further debate. If the parenting order is available and if the Government are seeking to learn from the Scottish experience, why should an anti-social behaviour order be applied to a very young child? I may not be understanding this point as well as I should, but I believe that a serious point has been made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. We are talking about young children, and I should have thought that there must be other ways of dealing with them than by dragging them through the court. The Minister may shake his head. He may disagree, but I have made my point.

Ms Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Government amendment No. 13 and against amendments Nos. 74 and 147. The anti-social behaviour order is one of the most important measures in the Bill. I am sure that it will contribute to restoring to many people and their communities a sense of security which has been missing in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State came to a conference in my constituency last year on the Blackthorn estate, where there had been rioting by young people and there were concerns about endemic disorder. Those problems were causing serious distress and, literally, wrecking some people's lives. Many of the people involved in the rioting were young. There were reports that some were as young as 11.
That relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith); although the anti-social behaviour order would not normally be used against young people who were rioting, the fact that

young people were involved in those serious disorders shows that we are not talking about little angels, but about young people capable of causing substantial distress and for whom—in some circumstances—it might be appropriate to use those measures. That is why I think the Liberal Democrats are wrong in their proposals to change the ages to which the orders might apply.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady must recognise that the Government are saying, at the same time, that there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use such an order in Scotland for a child aged between 10 and 16. She cannot tell me that there are no families from hell in Scotland.

Ms Keeble: I do not know about families from hell in Scotland. I do know that, in my constituency, there is clear evidence that children as young as 11 are capable of causing seriously disruptive behaviour. Although we do not want to take children through the courts, we must find sanctions to help to prevent behaviour that causes serious distress to other people.
For many of the people at that conference—where my hon. Friend the Minister of State presented the idea of the anti-social behaviour orders—the prospect of being able to deal with the problems that had torn their communities apart for so long was nothing short of a liberation. No longer would they be powerless to counter anti-social neighbours, or to deal with them only by placing themselves at risk of victimisation. No longer would they have to tolerate young people running riot around an estate without being able to set boundaries for their behaviour. No longer would the victims of crime feel a sense of injustice at a criminal justice system that failed to provide proper justice and redress for them.
One of the most startling presentations at the conference came from Blackthorn middle school, which presented an analysis of the difficulties presented by truants and disruptive pupils. The teachers were able to present a typology of behaviour which identified the need for different and more complex sanctions, some of which recognised the need for community support, and some of which recognised that, in some families, the lack of parenting skills was a major issue in terms of children starting down a road that could—if it is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister would say, "nipped in the bud"—lead from stone throwing to bike stealing to car stealing and then to a life of crime.
Middle schools cater for children aged from nine to 13, which is an indication of the seriousness of the behavioural problems we can get with young children. Before hon. Members jump to conclusions, the estate was not a wholly council-owned estate; nor was it an inner-city estate. It was an estate with mixed housing tenure and high employment levels. Although there was a fair measure of deprivation, it was not on the scale that we see in the inner cities. That is a symptom of how deep rooted some of the problems of disorder have become in our community, and that is why it is right that the Government should make the measure available.
In terms of the Government amendment, it makes sense to ensure that the measure can be applied to different local authority areas, since people do not live their lives by local authority boundaries. In Committee, the Opposition raised some points—which they have repeated this


evening—about the anti-social behaviour orders, on the grounds that it was not clear when and how they would be applied. I have found that the community in general has no doubt about the orders and is fairly clear about identifying the types of behaviour to which they might be applied.
During the Committee stage, I put out a leaflet that said something about the orders. Immediately, a stream of people came to an advice surgery with complaints about serious problems of anti-social behaviour on their estates. For example, an estate was living in fear of a family which had been evicted from their council property, but had bought a private property and had moved back in. Because the council action in evicting them applied only to their council tenancy, there was no immediate redress for local people. The anti-social behaviour order would provide an avenue of redress and it is worth noting that, in this instance, children in that family might have been the subject of such an order.
In addition, one member of a family that came to see me had severe facial injuries. The family had been involved in a series of altercations with neighbours which had spilled over into a nearby community. That dispute threatened the family—which had six children—with homelessness. One of the protagonists in the series of assaults was a young person of only 13.
I suspect that the main—perhaps the only—problem with the anti-social behaviour orders will be that they will be extremely popular and only too well understood by the public. There will be real pressures to apply them quite frequently, and I expect to see at the front of the queue many hon. Members who will want such action taken to resolve the problems that they hear about in their advice surgeries, weekend after weekend. I commend the orders to the House, with the Government amendment. I strongly oppose the changes to the age limit proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would weaken the effectiveness of what will be a popular measure.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I want mainly to deal with amendment No. 147, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), but I shall first refer briefly to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who acknowledged that the anti-social orders will be popular. More important, the Government want to make them effective. Throughout the United Kingdom, massive problems are caused by individuals and families who are not yet aware of the need to strike a balance between rights and responsibility in any community.
The Government have no doubt that, if properly used to deal with the appropriate tenants and, indeed, owner-occupiers, the orders could have a tremendous impact in improving the quality of life for a great number of people who experience hell because of the actions of individuals who should know better. It is difficult to sum up what motivates some families to behave anti-socially, but the orders will provide a remedy, as part of a wider armoury available to the police and local authorities. My hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis and for Northampton, North have made clear their support, which, I have no doubt, will be echoed on both sides of the House.

6 pm

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) laid great stress on the importance of ensuring that 10 to 16-year-olds should be subject to the anti-social orders, so will the Minister clarify why he believes that it is safe to exclude that age group from the orders in Scotland?

Mr. McLeish: I am treading a thin tightrope tonight between English and Scottish legislation. The crucial point is that England and Scotland are different jurisdictions. For the past 27 years, the children's hearings system has existed in Scotland on the assumption that children aged 16 and under will be subject to a specific series of provisions to ensure effective treatment, care and punishment. I do not want to stray into the debate as it applies to England, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said, the measures could, in certain circumstances, be applied to those under 16.
In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I repeat that the crucial point is that we are talking about different jurisdictions, although we could argue about whether the orders should apply to the same age groups in both England and Scotland. When we consulted in Scotland, we noted tremendous support from many quarters for applying the orders to children under 16, but we resisted doing so because, in Scotland, there are already measures to deal with that age group—we felt that, after 27 years of progress, it was vital to keep the children's hearings system intact. That is why we are treating Scotland differently—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not straying further into the more complex matter of English legislation.
The anti-social behaviour orders will be like a prohibitive injunction—in Scotland, we would call it an interdict. Moreover, it will be applied to individuals. Some hon. Members have talked about families; there will be many more orders affecting the family in England than in Scotland, where we are talking only about the anti-social behaviour order, which will be served on individuals, not on families or groups of people. It is important that I make that point, as it puts into perspective the wider concern that, in dealing with the anti-social behaviour of an individual, we may encompass the family.
Until now, families have been evicted for anti-social behaviour despite the fact that the children or the spouse were not involved—because of the activities of one family member, the whole family could be subjected to the difficulties and horrors of being evicted. The order will be a much sharper measure; it will allow us to concentrate on the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and—in many cases, I hope—to save the family.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I was a member of the Scottish Office civil service team that introduced the children's panels all those years ago. Because of the nature of proceedings in Scotland, it is easy to link the child to the family—the parents have to accept the decisions and take responsibility for the offence. Will the Government revisit the question whether the Kilbrandon system would be equally effective in England?

Mr. McLeish: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not responding to that, although I am sure


that my hon. Friend the Minister of State listened to what he said. As I have said, the jurisdictions are separate, and must find solutions to their own problems.
I have no difficulty with the principle behind amendment No. 147, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Perth. It is clearly right that a person against whom an anti-social behaviour order is made should know exactly what they must not do and where and for how long the order is to be in force. It is also important that those affected by the anti-social behaviour should be clear about what is prohibited by any order.
That provision does not need to be specified in the Bill, however. An order made by a Scottish court will, as a matter of course, specify extent, including geographical extent, duration and the prohibitions imposed on the person's behaviour. Like an interdict, the purpose of an order will be to prohibit—for example, it could prohibit loud music after 11 pm, noisy visitors after 2 am or entry into gardens or communal areas. The sheriff could consider a huge list of possibilities, so that the order fitted the circumstances in which the anti-social behaviour was taking place—the sheriff could find the proper ways in which to restrain that behaviour.
The court is also required to have regard to the terms of the order sought by the applicant. The hon. Member for Perth was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, so she will not have had the opportunity to read the draft guidance on the implementation of the provisions that was provided to its members—I shall arrange for her to receive a copy. I reassure her that the guidance makes it clear to the local authority applicants that they must decide what terms of an order to seek and that the terms should be specific, so that what constitutes a breach of those terms would be readily apparent to the person and to the local community. The guidance also makes it clear that the applicant must decide what duration of order to seek, up to, and including, an indefinite period.
The draft guidance was produced in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the voluntary organisation the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. It will be issued for full consultation later this summer.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth will be reassured when she sees the detailed guidance proposed for the implementation of the provisions. Of course, as more than a matter of courtesy, I should be happy to take account of her comments on the draft, which is a substantial document—as I said, I shall send her a copy after our proceedings. Given those comments, I hope that she will not press the amendment.

Mr. Beith: I should say in passing that Liberal Democrat Members accept Government amendment No. 13, which represents a helpful clarification.
We have had a useful debate. I thought that the hon. Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and for hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) may have had unrealistically high expectations for the order. They both vividly expressed the concerns that we all share about the problems that our constituents face. The hon. Member for Halesowen and

Rowley Regis explained at some length many of the existing measures based on co-operative efforts and partnership, which will almost certainly bring the greatest success—I think that even she regards the orders as the ultimate sanction.
The belief that the inclusion of 11 to 16-year-olds on anti-social behaviour orders will be widespread and will make a large difference flies in the face of what Ministers have been saying—it creates unrealistic public expectations about the orders. The public will believe that if the provision is altered, it will fail to provide what would otherwise be a major addition to the powers at the authorities' disposal—we know that that is not so.
The Scottish Office Minister clearly demonstrated—although perhaps he could not use these terms—that the Scots have a better system. In Scotland, those aged between 10 and 16 can be dealt with by a variety of procedures through the children's hearings system, which makes their inclusion in the anti-social behaviour orders unnecessary.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we believe that there are strengths in the Scottish system and weaknesses in the system in England and Wales. That is why, in the White Paper, the Bill and in other developments, we have wanted to change the system in England and Wales, not by replicating the Scottish system, but by learning from it and from what happens in other parts of the world.

Mr. Beith: And we are seeking to encourage Ministers to do exactly that. What has emerged from our useful debate is that, whatever some hon. Members say, those procedures will not be widely used for 10 to 16-year-olds if things proceed as Ministers intend. If we developed a better youth justice system, we could create a better way of dealing with that age group, but Ministers feel it necessary to keep that part of the provision on the statute book in the meantime. If that is the basis and because we will press Ministers to carry on with the reform of youth justice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'protecting' to end of line 22 and insert
'from further anti-social acts by the defendant—

(a) persons in the local government area; and
(b) persons in any adjoining local government area specified in the application for the order;

and a relevant authority shall not specify an adjoining local government area in the application without consulting the council for that area and each chief officer of police any part of whose police area lies within that area.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 6

FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 5, line 42, after 'area', insert
'including the behaviour of those under the age of criminal responsibility'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in clause 14, page 12, line 13, after 'considers', insert
'that there are exceptional circumstances which make'.
No. 12, in clause 16, page 14, line 3, at end insert—
'(3A) Where a constable has removed a child or young person under subsection (3) above, he may confiscate any article which he has reason to suppose that the child or young person was using in the course of offering any services (whether solicited or otherwise) to any person during the time he was absent from school without lawful authority.
(3B) An article confiscated under subsection (3A) above may be disposed of in a prescribed manner.'.

Mr. Beith: We have opposed the introduction of child curfews on both practical grounds and in principle, and we divided the Committee on clause stand part on that issue. As a matter of principle, it is inappropriate to deny basic freedom of movement to general sections of the public on the basis of the possible behaviour of a few individuals—one thinks of the present arguments about whether all English attendance at world cup matches should be stopped because of the behaviour of a few. It is a difficult principle once one starts to apply it; most of us have had experience of it from schooldays, when the whole class was kept in for the behaviour of one individual.
The terminology "curfew" had its origins in the locking of city gates at night, and its more recent use is borrowed from the practices of much more authoritarian regimes, which deny freedom of movement to many of their citizens for all sorts of reasons. Even for the apparently commendable reason of preventing or discouraging the bad behaviour of a few, it is not a desirable principle that large numbers of people should be penalised.
Furthermore, if curfews became widely used for this age group, it would be a substantial change in our society and in the relationship between the state and individuals, particularly in view of the signal it would give to young people. The more that young people are told that their behaviour is against the law merely because they are out and about, the more we shall sow in them the idea that the authorities, the police and the mechanisms of law and order are against anything that they do, rather than being there to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent, which is the signal that we ought to be giving them. We want them to support the police, and to recognise that law and order is their protection as well as that of other generations. To penalise them merely for being out of doors is unreasonable if they are not at fault in any way.
6.15 pm
The Government care very much about establishing who is responsible for things, and they seem to be throwing responsibility in all directions at once. During the passage of the Bill and in their consultation papers, they have rightly stated that they want parents and children as young as 10 to take more responsibility. Now, they are saying that the state should take responsibility for deciding what time children should go to bed. The desire to place responsibility where it belongs has gone slightly askew in giving the state that power.
I wondered whether the decision to proceed in this way had a sound basis in research, so I asked a parliamentary question, but the answer did not refer to any specific

research. How many young people under 10 are not being protected because of the absence of a curfew? If they are not being protected, could an existing power be more successfully enforced? How many young people are causing problems on the streets at night and what is the peak time for young offending? Is it late at night, when the curfew might be applied, or straight after school, when it would be impossible to apply? What has been the effect of curfews in other countries? Apart from the Hamilton experiment, which the Minister did not cite in his reply, we have no research evidence.
From the discussion, it has emerged that the proposal for local child curfews, however it started out, is now seen by Ministers to be more of an experiment than a substantial addition to policy. We are concerned that demands for extension of the use of curfews will increase. During our debates, hon. Members have pleaded that the age at which curfews apply should be raised and raised again, and that the period for which they apply should be longer and longer. Because of the pressures from the public to do something—not necessarily the right thing—about the problems that they face, we may be on a slippery slope in which curfews become more and more a part of our system.
Another concern is that curfews will be the first port of call in response to a problem in an area, and that if a few young people are causing trouble, we shall introduce a curfew rather than directing attention to them and using the resources of the various agencies, on a partnership basis, to deal with them and the problems that they cause. I appreciate that the Secretary of State will have to approve schemes, but he may be under growing political pressure to do so on a fairly widespread basis.
Given the decision in principle taken in Committee, we have tabled amendments to make it a requirement that the behaviour of those under the age of criminal responsibility in an area is considered when formulating crime and disorder strategies, so that thorough and appropriate responses can be developed. Recognising that that strategy would be developed, we could then allow child curfews only under truly exceptional circumstances—that would be the combined effect of the two amendments. More emphasis would be put on formulating plans to deal with criminal behaviour by groups of young people—children—and recognising that a curfew should be introduced only in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
Of course, a curfew is meaningless unless the police can enforce it and, if one has sufficient police officers to impose a curfew on every child over a certain age who is out at night in the area, one has available sufficient officers to target the people who are committing the crimes in the first place; that would be a better use of those officers. Much of our effort is dedicated to trying to ensure that if the powers are used at all, it will be in only the most exceptional circumstances and that resources will be targeted at young people who are committing, or are likely to commit, offences, and not at innocent young people, who will consequently feel that the police and the authorities are against them even when their behaviour is in no way illegal, and is no more unreasonable than being out at night after a time when some people think that their parents should have sent them to bed.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I tabled amendment No.12 as a probing amendment and, within its confines, I must refer to the problem of squeegee


merchants, particularly as it applies on the streets of London. For those who are not familiar with the problem, one pulls up the car at traffic lights and, before one knows it, someone has pounced on the car and is washing the windscreen with soapy suds. In truth, it is an unsolicited service much as described in new clause 6 which, disappointingly although understandably, was not chosen for debate.
The problem is most common in London, which is not surprising, as we have the most traffic and, indeed, the most traffic lights, which provide the opportunity for the squeegee merchant to select the car that he wants to clean. In one sense, the service ought to be welcome—the opportunity of having the windscreen washed for perhaps 50p—but regrettably, that is not the way in which the practice has developed. The service is unsolicited and one is given no opportunity to reject it or agree the terms. It leads to harassment, aggression and intimidating behaviour towards the occupants of the car. It has to be distinguished, for example, from the chap selling the Evening Standard beside the road—if one wants to buy the paper, one will catch his eye and he will walk over with the paper—or the man selling bunches of roses, to whom one can say, "Twenty roses for the wife, please"—or for whomever one is going to see. In those cases, there is an offer and an acceptance—an agreed contract.
Even confident and assertive people find it difficult to handle squeegee merchants. I came out of a car wash the other day and drove to the first set of traffic lights with a squeaky clean windscreen. I found a chap cleaning it before I had the opportunity to say, "Stop." That can lead to resentment. Some people refuse to pay, and others ask the squeegee merchant to stop providing the service, both of which actions may lead to trouble. Regrettably, there have been reports of attacks on drivers. Only yesterday, I heard that a driver at traffic lights on Vauxhall bridge asked a squeegee merchant to stop cleaning his windscreen, but as he wound down his window to convey that message, he got a bucket of water in his face. [Interruption.] It is quite amusing, unless one happens to be the guy driving the car.
In another case, someone asked a squeegee merchant to stop. The chap said that he would, but he cleaned off the soapy suds with wire wool, which permanently scratched the windscreen. My concern is primarily for vulnerable drivers—the elderly person just driving down the road to the shops, or a single woman on her own who finds the situation hard to handle.
When he was in opposition in September 1995, the Home Secretary made what was described as a tough-talking speech on the subject. He said:
Then there are the obstacles faced by pedestrians and motorists in going about their daily business. The winos and addicts whose aggressive begging affronts and sometimes threatens decent compassionate citizens, and the 'squeegee merchants' who wait at large road junctions to force on reticent motorists their windscreen cleaning service.
He said that there would be a crackdown, but we are 14 months into this Parliament, and we have seen no crackdown.
The problem is that the law does not specifically target problems of this type. The police must pray in aid a variety of offbeat powers to prosecute squeegee merchants. In the Vauxhall bridge case, the chap who got

the bucket of water in his face went to the local police station, where he was told the police would not prosecute because it would be one heck of a job to produce all the evidence and because the legislation did not target that type of crime. Various Acts are available to fight the problem in an oblique way: the Public Order Act 1986; the Metropolitan Police Act 1839; the Highways Act 1980; and London local government legislation. However, those powers do not properly equip the police to make the clean kill of a quick prosecution.
We need a targeted crime, as set out in the non-selected new clause 6. My amendment was intended to be probing. and I should be interested to hear what the Government will do to address a problem particularly prevalent on the streets of London and in areas around my constituency.

Mr. Rowe: My concern is the Government's attitude to truancy as expressed in the Bill and in some educational measures. Inspectors' report after inspectors' report has demonstrated that truancy falls to a very low level if young people feel that what they are being taught is worth while, and if it is taught in a good way. Measures are being introduced in the Bill and elsewhere that will force children back into schools from which they are absenting themselves because they think that what they are getting is not worth having.
For too long, we have treated the education system as the cheapest form of child minding. We may find that there is a serious morale problem among teachers who no longer wish to take on for the rest of us the role of forcing authority on young people, many of whom are tall, large and threatening, and who can completely disrupt a class. I strongly believe that the policy of forcing young people back to school—which we all applaud in theory—is misconceived. We must reconsider how we deal with truants, and how we treat teachers who have asked, openly and by implication, to be relieved of the burden of trying to deal with people with whom increasingly they have huge difficulty.
I have suggested that the time may have come for another look at whether education should be compulsory under the law, which enshrines our 19th-century belief that the authority of school is the cheapest way for our society to deal with youngsters who are increasingly unsuited to the kind of schooling they are getting, who know that they are wasting their time in schools and who need somewhere else to go.

Mr. Michael: There have been three strands of debate. Let me first reassure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that our proposals are sensible. I want to persuade him not to press his amendment, and to suggest that he is wrong to oppose our carefully constructed proposals, which will effectively hand authority back to parents rather than increase the power of the state.
Amendment No. 75 would require local authorities and police forces that are carrying out crime and disorder reviews to take account of the behaviour of those under the age of criminal responsibility. That is entirely sensible, but the amendment is not necessary. In drawing up crime and disorder strategies, local authorities, the police and their partners should base them on crime and disorder audits. The audits should reflect the causes of problems in a local community, including the behaviour


of those under the age of criminal responsibility. If there are problems, they should be dealt with, and they should appear in the strategy. If there are no problems, clearly there is nothing to be dealt with.
We have deliberately left the question of what issues and aspects of crime and disorder need to be addressed in the strategies to those who are experienced in the local area. There is nothing between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and it is clear from draft guidance now available on the website that those under the age of criminal responsibility should be taken into account. I am happy to look again at the guidance, and to make more transparent anything that is not clear. The right hon. Gentleman's point is a good one, but it does not need to be in the Bill.

Mr. Beith: Can a crime audit include what is being done by those under the age of criminal responsibility?

Mr. Michael: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the guidance, he will see that it is widely drawn. Audits of crime and disorder go wider than just criminal activity, and they include minor and petty disorders, which often cause even more distress to local communities than crimes that are regarded as more serious. Our target in the audits and strategies is to reduce the level of crime and disorder, and that covers the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, I am happy both to reconsider the guidance to make sure that it is clear, and to accept any comments that the right hon. Gentleman may wish to make on it.
An amendment identical to amendment No. 76 was tabled in Committee, and I thought that we had dealt with it. I was surprised to see the amendment tabled again, but it allows me to explain the position to the whole House, just as I did in Committee.
Some neighbourhoods are troubled by the criminal and anti-social activities of unsupervised young children. Gathering in public places at night, they can cause alarm and misery to the rest of the community and encourage each other into anti-social and criminal habits. If it is a question of one or two individuals, the Bill's child safety orders can deal with it. If it is a question of a group of youngsters, and the hours that youngsters are allowed out at night have become a problem in a street, it is often difficult for parents to take the responsibility of setting a new standard. It is difficult enough for parents to buck trends, but if there is a settled trend in the community, it becomes all the more difficult.
I should explain the steps necessary for a curfew order to be used; I think that they will reassure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. First, the local authority must consult the police—and more widely—on the terms of a scheme. They have to be put to the Home Secretary, who will consider them carefully to see how they suit local arrangements. Consultation with the local community and other agencies will take place before an order is invoked under the scheme. To place an order in a community or street, the local authority would have to consult the police. It must be a joint endeavour involving the police and the local authority. They would then have to consult the local community along the lines agreed by the Home Secretary in respect of the scheme. I can think of one case in my constituency where parents asked me to meet them to discuss problems in one community. Halfway through, they admitted that part of the problem

was children, including the children of people at the meeting, and that there was a need collectively to draw a line to set a standard for behaviour. Local child curfew schemes create the opportunity to do that.
6.30 pm
Local child curfews form part of a wider community safety strategy and will be applied at the instigation of the local authority concerned because it believes that there is no other way in which to deal with unsupervised young children. This is not a magic wand that will deal with the whole problem. Often, other approaches will deal with the sort of problems that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed recognised needed tackling. This provision should be used in appropriate circumstances, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Rowe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Michael: I am trying to move quickly because I understand that that is what Conservative Members want.

Mr. Rowe: Given his background, does the Minister agree, that in many instances, the importation of a youth and community worker would defuse the situation? Has he done any costings to find out whether the cost of policing a curfew, which is likely to fall on the police authority, would be greater than that of the local authority providing someone to give the kids a lead?

Mr. Michael: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is muddled, as he often is. My experience in 15 or 16 years of youth and community work, and as a councillor and Member of Parliament, is that we need a variety of mechanisms to deal with specific circumstances. I have made clear the specific circumstances with which this mechanism would help to deal. It may well be that the involvement of a local authority youth and community worker would help, but such workers are not a magic wand; nor are police officers. We need legislation appropriate to cover a variety of different situations and mischiefs that cause problems in local communities. I believe that this mechanism will prove its worth.
I do not think that the lack of information to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has referred proves that there is a lack of evidence of need. We can all demonstrate anecdotally that youngsters are out on the street late at night in a way that destroys their future as well as damaging the local community. That shows that no one has been willing to tackle the problem. We will monitor the way in which the provision is used, along with the other measures that we have put forward as part of a comprehensive package. In due course, I am sure that we shall debate how it has worked in practice.
Amendment No. 12 was tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway); I understand what he is trying to do. It is bad enough when children truant, but it is even more vexing when they engage in money-making ventures when they should be at school. The answer is to get them back to school. We added clause 16, which allows the police to act in partnership with local education authorities and schools to tackle truancy. It is practical because it ensures joint responsibility for dealing with


truancy. While truancy is an issue for the person who truants and for parents, who should take their responsibility, this measure allows police and education representatives to work together. There have been voluntary examples of that which have not had the authority of the law for the actions of police officers. This provision enables partnership to deal with the vexed problem of truancy.
It is not necessary or desirable to extend the provision to confiscating property, especially when no criminal offence is involved in its use. I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon, South will acknowledge the valuable contribution of clause 16 in seeking to tackle truancy by proper partnership—at Government level between the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment, and locally by enabling partnership.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister comment on the Government's approach to squeegee merchants? In opposition, it was part of Labour's crackdown.

Mr. Michael: That is part of the wider recent debate, which the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, about the need to intervene quickly in things that cause nuisance and distress to people, and to ensure that they are tackled by the police to prevent them from escalating. Minor items of disorder, as was shown by the British crime survey, lead to more serious offending and damage to the community later. Often offences are committed, and that is a matter for the police. One of the things that we are engaging with is creating a structure in which those who suffer from the commission of offences and the creation of nuisance in their community can work with the police to have the problems tackled, rather than it being a question of complaint and counter-complaint.
If the hon. Member for Croydon, South looks at the whole Bill and the mechanisms that it creates to tackle crime and disorder, both when serious and when at the precursor level to serious crime—including measures to deal with truancy—he should acknowledge that we have made great progress during the life of the Bill, which has been improved by the debates both in Committee and outside. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments, which I do not believe would improve the Bill. I hope that I have given an assurance about how its measures will be effective.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) got an answer on squeegee merchants. When the Home Secretary raised the issue in his famous pre-election speech, I thought that he had lost the plot and gone seriously off message. I suspect that he is trying to forget it. However, it is a problem in some areas and we have not had an answer on how best it can be tackled.
I did not expect to get an answer from the Minister which would convince me that introducing the curfew principle into our system of law was desirable, and I have not. What I have got is even clearer confirmation than I expected that the Government see it as having only a limited role, and one which has to surmount many hurdles before it can be put into place. I hope that, in trying to surmount those hurdles, the various bodies involved will realise that there are more immediate and direct ways in

which to tackle the problem than a curfew, which would probably be an admission of failure. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested, the involvement of youth workers might be a better answer, as might getting at individual behaviour.
It is a great mistake to tell youngsters who are merely out milling around, perhaps causing some irritation, but doing no harm, that they are acting against the law when they do not feel that they are doing anything wrong. Few things are more perverting to children's concepts of what is right and wrong than being punished for something that they did not do or did not feel was wrong in the first place. Many have had that experience in childhood and it has probably soured their relations with authority ever afterwards.
The Minister has shown that some of the expectations that surrounded curfews are not in the Government's mind. They regard the provision as limited. Our amendments were designed merely to reinforce that limitation. We argued the issue of principle in Committee, so there is no reason to pursue the amendments today. They have given the House the opportunity to clarify the Government's intentions, which are clearly more limited than some comments had suggested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

REMOVAL OF TRUANTS TO DESIGNATED PREMISES ETC

Amendment made: No. 159, in page 14, line 9, leave out from 'authority"' to 'as' and insert 'means—

(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council whose district does not form part of an area that has a county council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;
(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;

public place" has the same meaning'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 17

DUTY TO CONSIDER CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 14, line 21, leave out 'has' and insert
'means a local authority within'.

No. 15, in page 14, line 22, at end insert
'or the Common Council of the City of London'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 23

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AS GROUND OF EVICTION

Sir Robert Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 19, line 20, after 'tenant', insert
', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 84, in page 19, line 20, after 'house', insert
', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control,'.
No. 101, in page 19, line 24, after 'house), insert
'and whose commission is likely to have had a material impact on the quiet enjoyment of the home life of a person residing in the locality.'.
No. 85, in page 19, line 29, after 'tenant', insert
', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control,'.
No. 86, in page 19, line 29, after 'house', insert
', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control.'.

Sir Robert Smith: Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 would achieve the same goal in different parts of the clause, which seeks to widen the powers of eviction available to public sector landlords to include eviction because of the actions of tenants or their visitors to the property. We want to ensure that those powers will be used only in relation to visitors that the tenant can reasonably be expected to control. We are concerned that the clause could allow victims of domestic violence to be evicted because of the actions of their partner, whom they could not reasonably be expected to control.
Since we tabled the amendments, we have received from the Minister the draft guidelines, which have been extremely helpful. Paragraph 5 of the guidelines states:
It will be inappropriate for landlords to pursue cases where tenants are genuinely unable to control the activities of regular visitors, and in this connection landlords will wish to ensure in particular that women with violent partners are not placed at risk of unwarranted eviction.
I welcome the Government's clarification in those guidelines.
Such clarification is a thread that has run through the proceedings on the Bill, and I hope that, when the Scottish Parliament is set up, pre-legislative inquiry will help a great deal. It seems that guidelines are issued at the end of proceedings on Bills, and to a certain extent issues are resolved. However, there is no formal link between the guidelines and the Bill, and it is extremely important that, as the Bill is implemented, it is monitored to check that what was promised in the guidelines continues to be delivered.
Amendment No. 101 attempts to narrow the clause. If the tenant, visitor or lodger were convicted of any offence liable to imprisonment—although they would not necessarily go to prison—the tenancy could be at risk. We understand what the Government are trying to achieve. The Minister's visit yesterday would have reinforced the concerns of communities about trying to deal with drug dealers and break the cycle of such crime. However, the clause is widely drawn, and some landlords might not want closely to consider the Government's intentions, so our amendment would narrow the clause.
Paragraph 6 of the draft guidelines makes it clear that eviction should be pursued only when an offence has a bearing on the tenancy. I hope that, in further discussions with communities, Ministers may find ways of beefing up the guidelines to ensure that tenants can be evicted for acts that not only result in imprisonment but affect the neighbourhood, rather than society in general. Moving the person on does not necessarily protect the community.
Eviction can be only a small part of dealing with crime. Evicting someone and moving them on merely moves the problem elsewhere. It is important that the whole armoury of actions in the Bill and other legislation is used to tackle

the drug menace, because it is far more important to tackle the individuals and their offending behaviour than to deal with where they live. Moving them on from their community should help to break their links with that community, and perhaps help to treat them. It certainly helps to relieve the community.
6.45 pm
The Minister promised research—which, I understand from his letter, has not yet been undertaken—about how the measure has been implemented in England and Wales. It is perceived to have been successful in England, but it is important that we examine how it has worked in practice. That research has not yet been done, but we can try to build for the future. I understand that at present there are no centrally collected statistics on evictions by public sector landlords. It would be fairly easy to collect them, and they would be a useful measuring tool. If we could monitor evictions, we could find out whether the guidelines were being applied correctly, and whether there had been any development.
When the Minister replies, I should like him to deal with the possibilities of strengthening paragraph 6 of the draft guidelines, and of collecting statistics on evictions and monitoring their success. The Scottish Parliament will then be able to monitor the implementation of the Bill, and, if there are any transgressions, ensure that the legislation is reined in.

Mr. McLeish: In view of the desire to expedite business, I shall try briefly and comprehensively to respond to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
The hon. Gentleman was right about monitoring, and that will be an integral part of the measure. We are introducing anti-social behaviour orders, and widening eviction powers for landlords. There is a range of activities that need to be monitored, partly because the information is useful in itself, but also so that we can properly evaluate our measures. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that monitoring will be carried out, and that requires a series of statistics to be compiled by local authorities, landlords and, centrally, the Scottish Office. We concede that point.
I am pleased that the guidance has been of some help. I appreciate that it does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but it is draft guidance, and we are happy to listen to the views of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and take into account their collective wisdom.
The hon. Gentleman said that the clause is part of a wider armoury of measures that we need in any community. There is clearly significant support for attacking anti-social behaviour. This evening, we are concentrating on drugs and crime and the issue of visitors, which the hon. Gentleman spoke about. We are extending powers, and we must implement them with caution.
There are currently loopholes that prevent anti-social and criminal acts committed outwith tenanted properties and the activities of visitors from being taken into account when considering whether a tenancy should be continued. The extended grounds for eviction in clause 23 will close those loopholes, but they will not open floodgates. We hope and expect that, by increasing the deterrent effect of a threatened eviction and, for persistent abusers, who are


fortunately small in number, allowing swifter action against them, the new measures will help to produce more harmonious communities.
In framing our proposals, we have been guided by the consideration and conclusions of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Its landmark report in December 1996 serves as the platform for many of the measures, be they legislative or administrative, that we are now promoting.
For those unfamiliar with the Select Committee's findings, I inform the House that it considered the addition of new mandatory grounds of eviction, and concluded against that course of action. We support that conclusion, and the proposals in clause 23 are to extend the discretionary grounds for eviction.
That is an important distinction. The discretionary grounds are referred to as such because, in considering the evidence laid before them when landlords seek a repossession order on one of the discretionary grounds, sheriffs must apply a general test of reasonableness. Thus, eviction can be granted only when the sheriff, taking into account all the circumstances of each case, believes that it is reasonable for eviction to be ordered. In practice, therefore, the courts have a very wide discretion to take into account any relevant feature of the case, such as the likelihood that a tenant could control a violent or anti-social nuisance.
I reassure the House that nothing that we are proposing in clause 23 affects the existing requirement for sheriffs carefully to weigh the evidence presented, and to consider whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances. That is as it should be, and that, as a fundamental feature of the laws of eviction, provides a powerful safeguard against the type of abuse that hon. Members have described.
Points have been raised about the impact that the Bill may have on domestic violence and on women generally. The Government have pursued a very tough line on that issue since we were elected. We would do nothing to place women in very vulnerable circumstances in jeopardy. We intend to tackle crime, drug dealing and abuse generally, but certainly there will be safeguards—as I believe we said in the guidance—for women in vulnerable domestic situations.
It follows from what I have said that the spirit behind all the amendments in the group is not unwelcome. The aims very much echo our intentions, and if amendments such as Nos. 83 to 86 were needed to offer protection to vulnerable tenants, especially women, I would not hesitate to accept them. However, in my view, the general test of reasonableness, which I mentioned earlier, renders these very specific caveats unnecessary, and in some cases undesirable.
Our guidance to landlords will make it clear that the new grounds are intended to tackle serious anti-social conduct. Even if landlords choose to disregard the guidance which we have in place when the measures take effect, the courts will be required to apply the same test of reasonableness as currently applies.
In our view, amendment No. 101 confuses the two separate grounds for eviction which are we are extending, and it is therefore undesirable. Housing legislation currently holds separate the ground for eviction based on a criminal conviction and that based on anti-social

behaviour. That separation is maintained in our new grounds, and we wish to retain it. It is not necessary to provide in this way that the offences must impact on the quiet enjoyment of home life; the sheriff's general test of reasonableness already effectively requires the courts to take into account the nature of the offence and its bearing on the tenancy.
I firmly believe that, in the clause as drafted and the guidance that we shall issue, we are setting out our intentions clearly and promoting extended grounds for eviction which will be clear and limited in their application.
Yesterday, I visited Easterhouse in Glasgow, and I visited Cranhill. That community lives in fear of the menace of drugs. I was alarmed to hear the comments by the group of mothers I met. Although there are important civil liberties issues, and although it is important that landlords do not use the legislation irresponsibly, there are also very powerful arguments for saying to the women in Cranhill, "Yes, we need solutions to your problem." I think you know of their situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that situation in Glasgow, they want action.
Although it is not the solution to pass a problem from one part of a town or city to another, it might give the local residents a respite from the dealing, the pushing and the fear that children live in. The House would be remiss if it did not take those arguments seriously. I know that those feelings are shared by Opposition Members. I believe that we have achieved a balance; I hope that the guidance will ensure that that is the case.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply. On the subject of Cranhill, he has made the valid point that, if one removes a person from a community, thereby breaking their links and their network in that community, although one will have moved them into another community, at least it will take them time to build up their network, and then one might use other avenues to deal with them.
As with everything, no clause of the Bill should be oversold as the magic bullet that will solve the problem. However, if we have these clauses and then provide the resources to those on the ground, if communities are willing and in a mood to make use of them, and if we can build that momentum and keep it going, we may turn the tide of anti-social behaviour and remove some of the menaces that confront us. I especially welcome the assurance on reasonableness, because that is an excellent word, which probably defines things better than we possibly could by amending clause 23.
In light of those reassurances, the guidelines, the monitoring, and especially the gathering of statistics, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28

RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED OFFENCES: ENGLAND AND WALES

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 22, line 27, leave out
'of, or association with members of,'
and insert '(or presumed membership) of .

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 17 and 160.


No. 10, in page 22, line 33, after 'race', insert 'religion,' .
Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
No. 11, in clause 33, page 26, line 9, after 'race', insert 'religion,'.
Government amendments Nos. 107 and 108.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has just sat down on the Treasury Bench; now that he is present, the standard of debate should, as ever, rise to meet his—always high—standard. You know that from personal experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker; my right hon. Friend's reputation goes before him.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, and the equivalent amendments relating to Scotland—amendments Nos. 102, 103, 107 and 108—are designed to clarify the test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences. In Committee, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), undertook to consider the sort of case in which, for example, a Bangladeshi was the victim of hostility that was intended to be directed at a Pakistani. Those who commit many racially aggravated offences and who go in for acts of racial hatred are typically so ignorant that they see the colour of someone's skin, or their general appearance, and dismiss them as, for example, "Pakis" or other such horrible insults, without knowing from which racial or religious group they come.
We are determined that no perpetrator of racist attacks should escape proper conviction and punishment because of the perpetrator's ignorance about the victim's racial group. Our amendments in this group will put the issue beyond doubt, and we are grateful to Opposition Members for raising the matter in Committee.
Our amendments make it clear that, whatever racial group the perpetrator believes the victim to be from, an offence will be racially aggravated if racial hostility or motivation is proved. That should partly deal with the concern which has been expressed to me outside the House concerning the example of a woman who happens to be white, but who is Muslim, who is wearing a chador—a religious face-covering—and who is the subject of racial abuse and racial attack on the grounds that she is a Pakistani. The fact that she turns out to be a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani Muslim will be no defence if racial hostility or motivation is proved, which I suggest it almost always will be.
I now turn to amendment No. 160 and the equivalent amendment relating to Scotland, amendment No. 103. We have continually made it clear that we are as wholly opposed to religiously motivated violence and harassment as we are to racially motivated violence and harassment. The Bill does not protect some groups and not others; it protects everyone from racist crimes.
In Committee, several hon. Members asked whether the offences described in the Bill would cover attacks made by, for example, Muslims.

Mr. Clappison: On Muslims.

Mr. Straw: I am so sorry; I meant "made on Muslims".
The Government are aware of the concerns of some religious groups, especially Muslim organisations. Last week, I met Muslim community leaders to discuss that

issue, as I have done many times. Naturally, they are worried about the way in which the words that were originally in the Race Relations Act 1976, which were replicated in the Public Order Act 1986 and which are now in the Bill, have been judicially interpreted, not least in the case—although it was a non-criminal case—of Mandla v. Dowell Lee, a decision of the House of Lords in 1983.
We believe that, in practice, most—in my judgment, almost all—cases that appear to have a religious element will also have a racial element. When the perpetrators of these offences, for example, attack Muslims, they do not generally do so because of hostility to the tenets of Islam. I suggest that, in almost every case, they will be wholly ignorant of the tenets of Islam. They make their attacks because of racial hostility towards the victim and towards the ethnic minority groups that are associated with the Muslim faith in this country.
The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences requires that the racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor. It follows that, even if there is religious hostility, provided part of the hostility is racist, the offence will be covered by the provisions.
I took account of the representations made to me last week, and I examined carefully the transcripts of the debates in Committee last week. I believe that we should make it even clearer in the Bill that people charged with these offences cannot claim that they were motivated by religious, and not racial, hatred. For that reason, we have tabled amendment No. 160, which states:
It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) … above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on … the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or … any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
7 pm
Under the clause, as drafted to include those important assertions, even if religious hostility is the principal or main trigger for the hostility, as long as there is some racial element—I suggest that that will be present in almost every case—the offence will be proved, and a conviction should follow. I am only too familiar with the kind of racial harassment and attacks that are suffered by the Muslim community, and I believe that this amendment will cover almost every circumstance in which Muslims are victims.
I am aware of the provisions of amendment No. 10, to which the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), spoke, and to which the Liberal Democrats have appended their names. The amendment seeks to insert the word "religion" after "race". As I think the supporters of the amendment accept, including that single word would significantly extend the terms of this group of racially motivated offences to cover religiously motivated offences generally.
We do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward legislation in due course to cover religiously motivated offences in the same way as we are covering racially motivated offences, even where the principal motivation is religious. However, this area requires careful consideration.
For example, the issue of whether someone belongs to a particular racial group, as defined initially in the Race Relations Act 1976 and subsequently, can be subject to


an objective test. It is a matter which can be proved by external evidence. It is better defined in clause 28(2), which states:
In this section 'racial group"'—
it is a pretty wide definition—
means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
It is obviously much more difficult to define whether someone is a member of a religious group, which involves a subjective as well as an objective test. That does not mean that it may not be a candidate for future legislation, but it makes the matter more complicated.
I know that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition, is about to respond. I gently remind the Opposition that, despite the calls from Labour and the Liberal Democrats over many years regarding racially motivated crimes, those calls were resisted by the previous Government, often on the ground of the difficulty involved in defining such crimes. If that was difficult, it is still more difficult to define crimes that are based on religious hostility or hatred. We do not rule it out, but we point to the difficulty involved.
In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that we were establishing research on the nature and the scale of religious discrimination in order to establish the size of the problem. On 12 May, the hon. Member for Hertsmere asked whether that research would include religious attacks within the framework of the Bill. The Minister replied:
They will he considered as part of people's experience of discrimination."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1998; c. 316.]
That is obviously an important part of the research. However, that research has not yet been concluded—and it could not be concluded before the Bill is likely to become law.
I appreciate that the changes do not go as far as some groups would wish. However, I remind the House—and particularly those hon. Members who support amendment No. 10—that the Muslim Council of Britain, a representative group which came to see me last Tuesday, issued a statement after I had moved the amendment and the equivalent amendments for Scotland.
The council said that it welcomed my decision to table the amendment, and also the guidance that we shall publish along with the Bill. It went on:
Although the questions of religious discrimination and vilification need to be addressed fully, the British Muslim community feels greatly encouraged by the vision and leadership displayed for the first time by the government. We view this amendment as a small but significant first step towards the economic, social and political inclusion of the Muslim community in the national life".
I record my thanks to the Muslim Council of Britain for those remarks. Given my comments and the important clarification provided by the Government amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press amendment No. 10.

Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary's important speech, and I am grateful for the care that he has brought to the subject. As was evident to

all those who are familiar with the way in which it was dealt with in Committee, the matter has been handled sensitively by all sides. We share common objectives: it is a question not of whether we should do what we can to combat racial and religious attacks, but of how we will do so.
I welcome the Home Secretary's comments about amendments Nos. 16 and 17. They improve the Bill and will deal with the situation that arises when a person from one racial group is attacked by someone who believes that that person belongs to a different racial group. The amendments take the matter a little further and will cover certain cases. We welcome that move.
I listened to what the Home Secretary said about amendment No. 10, and I am not sure that I can extend as warm a welcome to those remarks—although I appreciate the care that the Home Secretary has brought to the subject. I shall reply gently to the Home Secretary's comments about the previous Government's approach to racial attacks. It has long been established in law that a racial element of a case is an aggravating feature, and the courts regard it as such. There is strong authority—including recent authority given during the lifetime of the last Parliament by Lord Justice Taylor—that racial attacks should be regarded as an aggravating feature by the courts.
That system applied across the board to all types of offences where there was a racial feature. It was not a question of whether a racial element should be regarded as an aggravating feature—that has always been the case. The Government have their own view about how that should be achieved, and the Bill marks a change in the way in which the law deals with racial attacks. Instead of the question whether a racial element is being decided by the judge in all cases, as at present, the Bill would put that question into the hands of the jury in certain cases.
It is a slightly wider application, and I shall not go far down this road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to return, gently, a point the Home Secretary made to me. As the Government are minded to change the way in which the courts approach racial attacks, why do they not go the step further that we suggested in our earlier amendments and include all offences, including the most serious offences of personal violence and public order that are not currently included in the Bill? 1 am straying slightly from the main subject, but I wanted to respond to the Home Secretary's point.
That is not the point at issue in amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which reflect the fact that, as the Bill stands, offences committed because of hostility towards religion rather than race are not regarded as having aggravated features for the purposes of the Bill. We believe that offences committed against individuals because of their religion are every bit as evil as offences committed against individuals because of their race; and that both are extremely evil.
To attack people because they are wearing a hejab or sporting a beard is every bit as evil as attacking people because they are black or brown. Many would say that there is not a great deal of similarity between those factual circumstances, but the key distinction for the purposes of the Bill as it stands is whether the attack is motivated by racial hostility or religious hostility. Racial hostility is covered by the Bill, but religious hostility is not.
From what he said, it is evident that the Home Secretary is mindful of that problem, and sympathetic to attempts to deal with it. I listened carefully to his description of the Government amendment, which we have been considering since it was tabled. As the Home Secretary said, its intention is to make it clear that, even where there may be a religious element in a specific crime, if the hostility is even partly racist it will be covered by the Bill. We regard the amendment as an attempt by the Government to move in the right direction, but we fear that, in practice and in effect, they have not moved far, if at all.
Without the Government amendment, it is clear on the face of the Bill that offences that are motivated "wholly or partly" by hostility towards a racial group are covered by the Bill, so, unamended, it already covers matters encompassed by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment does not take matters a great deal—or, on reflection, I would have to say, any—further. In Committee, both the Opposition and the Government accepted that, where there is even a partial racial motivation, offences that have a mixed religious and racial motivation will be covered by the Bill. The amendment might be designed to make that more explicit, but it is already the effect in law, so the amendment is little more than a restatement of the Bill's existing provisions.
The Home Secretary said that, in his judgment, in many of the cases involving a religious motive, if not in almost all, there would also be a racial motive. I am not entirely convinced that that is true. It is necessary to go further and cover cases where there is an entirely religious motive and no racial motive.
Sadly, attacks are made on people purely and exclusively because of their religion. The Bill as it stands will not cover the case referred to by the Home Secretary, of the white woman wearing a hejab, which was related in a recent briefing meeting that I attended. The right hon. Gentleman said that the case would be covered if the person attacking the white woman wearing the hejab thought that she was Bangladeshi. That might be so, but cases where that is not so—where the attacker knows that the woman is white and attacks her purely because she is wearing that badge of religious identity—will not be covered by the Bill. I put it to the Home Secretary that the same would apply whatever the racial or ethnic origin of the person attacked, solely because they were wearing a badge of religious identity.
Our concern is that, even with the amendment, the Bill will not cover those cases in which a person is attacked purely because of that person's religion, and where there is no racial motive for the attack. The Home Secretary cannot tell the House that such cases will be covered by the Bill. We fear that, if it is not amended, we shall create all sorts of anomalies, whether actual or perceived, and potential sources of injustice.
The Government are aware that the courts have judged Sikhs to have the characteristics of a single ethnic group, whereas Muslims come from many different ethnic groups; it follows that any offence committed against a Sikh will automatically be covered by the provisions, but that an offence against a Muslim will not necessarily be covered. We are in danger of creating a sense of injustice. The Home Secretary knows that there is widespread concern—especially among the Muslim community

because of the variety of ethnic backgrounds from which Muslims are drawn, but among other communities as well—about that possible source of anomaly and injustice.
7.15 pm
I appreciate that the Government are not closing the door on this matter for the future, but we are concerned about the state of law now. To pass the Bill, even amended, would risk creating anomalies and injustices. In addition, the courts might be left with many practical difficulties. It is not satisfactory for the Government to proceed in this way and to create new categories of racially aggravated offences, while leaving out the question of religion. We would prefer that the two issues be dealt with together. The law would be in a better state if they were.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's remarks on this important subject, which is of interest to many people. We appreciate his efforts, and the care and sensitivity that he has brought to the issue, but we have to say that the amendment he describes will not remedy the problems that we identified in Committee. The amendment does not take matters a great deal, if any, further, and the Bill is not satisfactory as it stands. Because we do not want to pass a potentially bad law that could be the source of anomalies and grievance, we shall seek to press this matter to a vote.

Fiona Mactaggart: I rise to speak on a matter that is of real concern in my constituency. On the streets of Slough, young Asians attack and maim each other; the excuse for that street-gang violence is that one side is Sikh and the other is Muslim.
I am deeply concerned about an unintended consequence of the Bill. I have entered into extensive correspondence with the Home Office and with my local police force on the effect of the Mandla v. Dowell Lee judgment, which suggests that one side in that street warfare could be classified as a racial group, whereas the other might not. In the words of my local police superintendent when writing to me:
You and I know how fragile an issue this is locally and it seems most undesirable that this piece of legislation should unwittingly make it more so.
I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tabled the amendment, which will deal with part of the problem. I was glad to hear him declare tonight that he has an open mind on the future. However, I should be more reassured if he could give me three assurances.
First, it is clear that it is not intended that the Bill should bear more on one side of the street violence than on the other, so would my right hon. Friend agree to monitor charges and sentences in such cases in communities such as Slough? There are, thankfully, few areas where such incidents occur, but in places such as Slough, Hounslow and Southall, where such cases have occurred, sentences and charges should be monitored.
Secondly, if the result of that monitoring suggests that the impact is bearing unfairly on the Muslim community—I am reassured at present because the police are blamed by both the Sikh and the Muslim communities for being unfair, which suggests that the police may have got it right—or on one community more than the other, I hope that the open mind that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary declared at the beginning of his speech


will swiftly be brought to bear on the issue. Such an outcome is clearly not what is intended as a result of legislation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider legislation to protect religious groups in the same way as racial groups are protected by the Bill.
Thirdly, could the guidance to which my right hon. Friend has referred include advice to the Crown Prosecution Service about how to treat cases such as the ones that arise in my community?
I believe that if I had the three assurances for which I ask I could say to both of the street gangs, which try to make their violence respectable, that the Bill will not make things uneven but will help us, as indeed the whole Bill does, in preventing youth violence on our streets.

Mr. Straw: By way of an intervention, I give my hon. Friend the explicit assurances that she seeks in respect of each of the three points that she raised.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have finished.

Mr. Allan: We welcome the new offences that are set out in the Bill, and for which we have called for a long time. We particularly welcome the fact that the Government were open to extending the offences to those of criminal damage. The issue was raised by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia in another place. The Government have been open to the issues raised and expressions of genuine concern. We welcome also the amendments that have been tabled in response to various matters that have been put to the Government by various groups and by hon. Members.
We share the concern of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that the Bill as it stands still does not go far enough. The hon. Gentleman referred to specific instances such as the white woman who has a badge of Muslim identity on her and is attacked. I could refer to other instances of conflict between religious groups where the members of each are clearly of the same ethnicity. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned groups of Sikhs and Muslims fighting one another. People in Scotland have experience of instances of violence between Catholics and Protestants, which can destroy communities in the same way as inter-racial violence, but which I believe would not be covered by the Bill.

Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while this is an extremely difficult issue and that it is often difficult to determine between religious and racial groupings and identities, we quite often find—I speak from experience in having dealt with such matters—that women who take on the clothing, or other things that are associated with a particular ethnic group, might be attacked on a racial basis in a vile way? They are seen to be the partners, or whatever, of men from a different ethnic group. It is a particularly obnoxious and vile form of attack which quite a number of women experience.

Mr. Allan: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is an obnoxious form of attack. I am reassured to an extent that, in some cases, it will be covered by legislation. Our concern is about the cleverness of defence lawyers—after

all, they are paid to be clever. Our concern is that a lawyer could take a defence case into court, a white woman is put up in the witness stand, and the defence lawyer could say, "Look, that individual is white, how can there be any form of racially aggravated assault?" The court and the jury are likely to concur with that. That is our concern. Where these instances occur, defence lawyers will use, as they are paid to do, every tool at their disposal. We are keen to ensure that those tools are not available and that in instances of religiously motivated offences, where there is no obvious racial element for the court to perceive, we are able similarly to take severe action to limit damaging assaults, which are often caused by some of the most reprehensible people in society.
We are grateful to the work of organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain for bringing these matters to our attention, and to other groups such as the Sikhs and the Jews, which have supported the Muslims, even though technically they are covered at present. There has been a broad-based alliance in pushing these matters forward.
We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service represents the acid test. The staff of the CPS will have to operate the new laws once they are introduced. The current distinctions do not give them the necessary tools to operate in every circumstance, although they will have the tools to operate in the large majority of cases.
I take issue with the Home Secretary's contention that there is an objective test of race. All definitions of race are vague at best and are quite clumsy tools. In a multicultural society where we have gradations of race and gradations of cultural difference as people properly mix, integrate and take on different cultural norms, traditional notions of race are highly inadequate.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, to which we put our names, includes the idea of religion within a definition of race and is in itself a clumsy tool. However, we believe that it is as good an approximation as any in terms of giving the CPS the tools that it needs, which is the focus that we have all the time. It should have the ability to take the bigots who cause offensive acts of violence and other damage on individuals to court and to make the charges stick. The inclusion of religion will give the CPS the tool that it needs to cover all instances of racially or religiously motivated violence, rather than the 90 or 95 per cent. that I think the Home Secretary might assure us are covered by the Government amendments. We want 100 per cent.
We believe that amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would take us to a position where every instance of racially or religiously motivated assaults, in whatever form and in whatever division between the race element and the religious element, would successfully be prosecuted by the CPS. The House will then have sent the bigots the message, a message which they will have plenty of time to think on as they serve the sentences that they will rightly be handed down.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am glad to be able to speak briefly in the debate. I welcome the clauses that create the new offence of racial aggravation. I have a specific constituency reason for wanting to do so.
On Second Reading, I brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the case of a Cambridge United supporter who was caught chanting racial abuse. Unfortunately, the Crown Prosecution


Service was not able to bring a case against him on a criminal charge under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 because he was chanting abuse by himself and not with others. In the end, a case was brought against him under the Public Order Act 1986, which resulted in his being banned from football matches for two years. Although that is a serious punishment for him, it is not the punishment which I think he deserves.
Cambridge United has always taken racism seriously and has done everything to educate youngsters as well as taking tough action when it finds racism occurring. It has been involved in campaigns such as "kick racism out of football" and "give racism the red card". When it receives complaints from members of the public about foul language and racial abuse, it takes action. On the occasion to which I have referred an undercover operation was mounted during a game at which Cambridge United was at home playing Scarborough and fielding four black players. The spectators observed the hurling of threatening and abusive language at both players and spectators.
I believe—I hope that my right hon. Friend will put me right if I am wrong—that clauses 31 and 32 would enable a spectator behaving in that way to be charged under the Public Order Act 1986 for the new offence of racial aggravation. I think that all my constituents would welcome that. It would certainly be welcomed by Cambridge United.

Mr. Malins: It is customary in court, as a witness is sworn in, for the usher to ask the witness, "Do you have any religious belief?" Depending on the answer, the appropriate oath is administered. The House will be intrigued to hear that only a fortnight ago I was sitting in court hearing a case judicially when a witness was wheeled into court and the usher asked that witness, "Do you have any religious belief?" The witness replied, "No, I don't. I am Church of England." It was difficult to know which oath should be administered.
The difficulty with this area, which the House might as well admit, is that there will be problems for the courts if we stray into individual preferences, whether they be religious or racial, or in respect of individual states. When one category—race, for example—is covered, it is difficult to resist the pressure for the floodgates to open so that two, three, four or many more categories may be considered.
7.30 pm
I foresee difficulties for judges in directing juries. Whether or not something was spelt out in statute, judges would be able to take into account all the circumstances of a case, such as an aggravating factor, when deciding on sentence; indeed, they always do so. It could be dangerous for hon. Members to list too many sections of our society that might need special or individual attention.
The Bill covers racial hostility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, but not religious hostility. Although the Home Secretary pointed to support for what he said from a particular group, hon. Members should know that the Pakistan Welfare Association, which is a major force, has contacted me through the many people I know in it. It urges hon. Members to support amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and would

insert the word "religion" in the Bill. For those reasons, it is only proper that hon. Members support our amendment.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I support amendment No. 10. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who rightly said that there would be racial discrimination in almost every case where there was religious discrimination. I am sure that that is statistically correct, and that he earnestly believes it to be correct. I am also sure that it is correct in respect of his constituency and of mine, which is where he has his home, but it is not correct in respect of the place that I come from.
I shall speak briefly about the situation in the west of Scotland, where there is no racial difference in one section of the population, but a significant religious difference between Catholics and Protestants. It is well known in every community who is a Catholic and who is a Protestant, not only because of the football teams that people support, but because of the schools that they attend. There is certainly antagonism there.
I know of a young man who was attacked by supporters of the opposing side when travelling home from a football match about 18 months ago. The teams were, of course, Rangers and Celtic, and the attack took place in the centre of Glasgow. The young man, who was 17, was murdered. That was not football hooliganism—far from it; the attack was religious bigotry. I am sure that the Home Secretary will understand the point that I am making: if they do not accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the Government will send the wrong message. They should be sending the message that religious discrimination and intolerance are every bit as bad as racial discrimination and intolerance.
Speaking of intolerance, I appreciate that I must be brief, because the football supporters and people of differing religions to whom I have referred will be united this evening, just as hon. Members from both sides of the House—and perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will be united in their antagonism to the citizens of Morocco. I mean that in the nicest possible sporting sense.

Mr. Straw: This has been a brief but important debate. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who represents my home area in Essex, to get away because of other events. She may not be alone in that, and I should say to her that we welcome allcomers in that part of Essex, including Celtic and Rangers supporters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked whether racial chanting by one person could be a public order offence under clause 31. The answer is yes, it could—if it met the test of "harassment, alarm or distress". It would not be a football offence, but it certainly would be an offence. I hope that that gives her some assurance.
Considerable reference has been made to the way in which the courts have defined racial groups. Clause 28 uses the words
race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.


The leading authority in respect of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is Mandla v. Dowell Lee. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said:
The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long-shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups and … (2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance.
He added other categories which were not essential, but relevant. He added:
A group defined by reference to enough of these characteristics would be capable of including converts, for example, people who marry into the group, and of excluding apostates.
The definition judicially determined, which appears in clause 28, does not exclude religious groups or converts into them. I understand the difficulty in respect of the Muslim community, and I hope and believe that the Government amendments go a long way to meeting the concerns.
I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who represented her ethnic origins, that we of course recognise the case for laws dealing with religious discrimination and hatred. We are giving it active consideration, but we need to give such offences the same careful consideration that we have given to these offences. For those reasons, and no others, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 17, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (1)(a) above—
membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed" means presumed by the offender.'.
No. 160, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on—

(a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or
(b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 22, line 33, after 'race', insert 'religion,'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 268.

Division No. 313]
[7.38 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Brake, Tom


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Breed, Colin


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bercow, John
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Blunt, Crispin
Chope, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brady, Graham
Cotter, Brian





Cran, James
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
Oaten, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Feam, Ronnie
Paice, James


Flight, Howard
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Randall, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Rendel, David


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Garnier, Edward
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sanders, Adrian


Gray, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Shepherd, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Harris, Dr Evan
Soames, Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hayes, John
Spring, Richard


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Stunell, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Hunter, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Johnson Smith,
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkwood, Archy
Tredinnick, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyrie, Andrew


Lansley, Andrew
Wallace, James


Leigh, Edward
Waterson, Nigel


Letwin, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lidington, David
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Livsey, Richard
Willetts, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Woodward, Shaun


Loughton, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sir David Madel and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bermingham, Gerald


Alexander, Douglas
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Borrow, David


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Banks, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben


Battle, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Begg, Miss Anne
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)






Browne, Desmond
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Buck, Ms Karen
Healey, John


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hepburn, Stephen


Byers, Stephen
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Home Robertson, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hood, Jimmy


Caton, Martin
Hope, Phil


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hoyle, Lindsay


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clwyd, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coaker, Vernon
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cranston, Ross
Keeble, Ms Sally


Crausby, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kemp, Fraser


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davidson, Ian
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Laxton, Bob


Dawson, Hilton
Lepper, David


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Levitt, Tom


Dismore, Andrew
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dobbin, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Doran, Frank
Lock, David


Dowd, Jim
Love, Andrew


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Edwards, Huw
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Efford, Clive
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McFall, John


Ennis, Jeff
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Flint, Caroline
Mackinlay, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foulkes, George
McWalter, Tony


Gapes, Mike
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Marek, Dr John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grant, Bernie
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Merron, Gillian


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Milburn, Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mitchell, Austin


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Moran, Ms Margaret
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Singh, Marsha


Morley, Elliot
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Soley, Clive


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Southworth, Ms Helen


Norris, Dan
Speller, John


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stinchcombe, Paul


Osbome, Ms Sandra
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stringer, Graham


Pendry, Tom
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Perham, Ms Linda
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pope, Greg
(Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Todd, Mark


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Vaz, Keith


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooker, Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Roy, Frank
Winnick, David


Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Worthington, Tony


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Clive Betts and


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 33

RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 25, line 35, leave out
'of, or association with members of,'
and insert '(or presumed membership) of.

No. 103, in page 25, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (2)(a) above—
membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed" means presumed by the offender.
(2B) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above whether or not the offender's malice and ill-will is also based, to any extent, on—

(a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or
(b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 35

EFFECT OF CHILD'S SILENCE AT TRIAL

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 26, leave out lines 16 to 20.
We now come to the question of removing the right to silence for children aged under 14. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 permits a court or jury to draw such inferences as seem proper from a defendant's failure to give evidence or a refusal to answer any questions. That was described as ending the right to silence, and I adopt the same description now. The provisions of the 1994 Act on the right to silence were restricted to defendants aged over 14. Defendants aged under 14 still enjoyed what has been described as the right to silence.
In view of what the Labour party said during the passage of the 1994 Act, we are slightly surprised that the Government are now proposing to abolish the right to silence for children. Having opposed and voted against ending the right to silence for adults, the Government now propose to go a step further and end the right to silence for children.
We are surprised by that, because in 1994—not all that long ago—the opposition to the ending of the right to silence was led by the then shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Prime Minister. He regarded this as a most serious matter to which he gave deep consideration. He told the House of Commons that the right to silence was a fundamental principle and that the case for changing it had not been made. He said:
We go further, and say that it is more than merely a matter of high constitutional principle. There is a serious and substantial risk that, in the manner in which the Government have proceeded, we will not merely fail to convict more of the guilty, but that we are in danger of convicting more of the innocent. Those who are in primary danger from the changes will not be, as has been said, the professional and the hardened criminal, but they could well be the weak, the inadequate and the frightened."—[Official Report, 13 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 261-62.]
Labour Members may latch on to the phrase
in the manner in which the Government have proceeded
as though it is a get-out clause. I advise Ministers that they should not see it as a get-out, because the position I described in my opening remarks is precisely the same as "the manner" to which the then shadow Home Secretary was referring. The effect of the Government's proposals for children is precisely the same as that of the 1994 proposals for adults. If there is any attempt to seek a get-out, I shall read out the then shadow Home Secretary's description—although I note that comments from hon. Members on the Treasury Bench have now subsided. That get-out has been closed off.
This is a serious issue, because the position of children in courts is special. A high-profile campaign has recently been launched by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children about the way in which children who are victims are dealt with in courts. Some of the same considerations must also apply to children of 10 or 11, or 12 or 13, who are defendants. The 1994 Act recognises that special considerations apply to them.
Children of those ages stood trial at the Old Bailey on serious charges. The case was reported in The Times on 16 January 1998 under the headline:
Old Bailey becomes classroom for rape trial of 10-year-olds".

The report begins:
Court 12 at the Old Bailey has been transformed like a stage set into a modern primary school classroom. The only thing missing is a sandpit, a lump of Play-doh or a large frieze showing the letters of the alphabet.
Yesterday in the court two boys aged ten became the youngest children to be tried for rape. Their alleged victim was a nine-year-old pupil, raped in the lavatories of their primary school. A third nine-year-old boy escaped prosecution because he was too young to face criminal charges while two others are accused of indecent assault.
Four square tables have been arranged in the middle of the room, each with five or six chairs, just as at school. Each of the ten-year-olds sits at a separate table with his barrister, the barrister's junior, a parent and a child liaison officer.
The first thing that strikes you is how very tiny the little boys are. One of them looks no more than seven. If they had to stand in a dock they would be invisible.
Clause 35 would create similar scenes. If the clause is passed unamended, children will lose the protection of the right to silence, which they currently enjoy under the 1994 Act.
We think that special considerations should apply in the cases of young children, and are surprised that the Government are taking such a course. Although we are glad that they have repented of their opposition in 1994, one surely cannot repent of holding what the then shadow Home Secretary described as "high constitutional principles" or of seeking to avoid the terrible risk of convicting the innocent—which also was dealt with eloquently by the then Home Secretary. We think that such considerations should apply particularly strongly in the case of young children, for the reasons that I have given.
The Government are taking a very surprising course, which will have to be examined and justified further.

8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Amendment No. 63 would remove clause 35 from the Bill entirely. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a rather confusing argument in its favour.
The purpose of clause 35 is to amend section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which deals with the inferences may be drawn at a trial, if the defendant chooses, in certain circumstances, to remain silent. Currently, such inferences may not be drawn when the defendant is under the age of 14, when the guilt of the accused is not an issue, or when the defendant's physical or mental condition makes it undesirable that he should give evidence.
It is the Government's intention, as effected by clause 35, to remove the age restriction from section 35 of the 1994 Act, so that the provision may apply equally to all juveniles and adults. The remaining restrictions in section 35 will not be affected.
There are two principal reasons for making such a change. The first is consistency with the Government's intention to abolish the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax—a proposal which has met with an extremely favourable response among practitioners in the arena of youth justice. Abolition of the presumption may result in a conviction, which will allow a formal opportunity for intervention in what may very well be the beginning of an offending career, so that the young person may be


turned away from such a path at the earliest opportunity. Such intervention is a key principle behind our proposals. If offending behaviour occurs, our objective is to intervene early, so that we may begin turning that young person away from offending behaviour.
In keeping with that thinking, clause 35 will allow a court or jury to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant between the ages of 10 and 13. We concluded that the defendant is responsible for his or her behaviour. Consequently, in most cases, it is eminently reasonable to conclude that a child between those ages will be able—if the circumstances are clearly explained to him or her—to understand the consequences of refusing to answer a question in court, or of refusing to speak up on his or her own behalf.
It is particularly important that a young person should provide any innocent explanation, should there be one, for his or her conduct. To allow a young person to evade that responsibility does him or her no favours. Our whole programme is about getting young people to face up to their offending behaviour, and part of that responsibility is explaining that behaviour. When it seems to the court or the jury that a child does not understand, he or she will still be able to be protected by the provisions of section 35 of the 1994 Act, which allow the court not to draw inferences if it considers that the child's mental or physical state makes that undesirable.

Mr. Clappison: Is not doli incapax an entirely separate issue? Moreover, if that safeguard has been removed, is there not a stronger case for examining even more carefully the need for other safeguards?

Mr. O'Brien: The answer to that question is no. Although doli incapax is another matter, it is related to the one that we are debating. If we are to have consistency and logic in what we do, our proposal should follow as a further change.
In most cases, it is right and appropriate that young people should face up to their responsibilities and give an account of themselves, and that any refusal to do so should be regarded in the same way as would, for example, the refusal of a 14 or 15-year-old to provide an account. Either we should treat young people as responsible for their actions or we should not. If they are responsible, they should be able to provide an explanation for their actions. Amendment No. 63 is effectively a charter for irresponsible behaviour by young offenders.
The second reason for retaining clause 35 is, once again, to achieve consistency—not, this time, with the Government's new legislation, but with current provisions on juvenile justice. Under section 34 of the 1994 Act, there are no restrictions on drawing inferences from the failure of 10 to 13-year-olds to mention facts when charged or questioned by police. Similarly, all children above the age of criminal responsibility are already treated equally, under section 36 of 1994 Act, which deals with the failure or refusal of the accused to account for objects, substances or marks, and under section 37 of that Act, which deals with the failure or refusal of the accused to account for his or her presence at a particular place. Clause 35 simply brings the position of those young people in court into line with current related provisions.
By treating all juveniles in the same way, except where individual circumstances clearly merit different treatment, we can ensure an efficient and effective approach to all

offenders over the age of criminal responsibility, and can nip their offending in the bud at the earliest possible stage. We are not talking about getting a conviction and imposing a draconian penalty on a young person. Our objective is to tackle offending behaviour and divert young people from further offending, and to ensure that the courts have the ability to effect our objectives.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will not press his amendment.

Mr. Clappison: I am not entirely satisfied by the Minister's explanation. He said that abolition of doli incapax has received a broadly favourable reaction. As he knows, the Committee carefully considered abolition and took the view that the Government's course on the issue was right. However, not everyone took that view. The Minister should know that we received representations from organisations that were concerned about abolition.
In another place, on the abolition of doli incapax, Baroness Mallalieu—who was one of the counsel in the case at the Old Bailey that I mentioned—said that she hoped that
the Minister will not lightly dismiss the concerns of many who practise at the criminal bar about the abolition of this rule."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1998; Vol. 587, c. 833.]
The Minister would do well to bear in mind those concerns.
We weighed up the arguments and thought that abolition of doli incapax was the right course to take. We thought that it should not be necessary for the prosecution effectively to have to prove that the child knew the difference between right and wrong. However, we do not think that that belief in itself makes the case for abolishing a child's right to silence in court. The issues are quite separate. If one is removing a safeguard such as doli incapax, the case for carefully examining other existing safeguards—such as the right to silence—is strengthened.
The Minister was right to say that children do not have the right to silence in other settings, such as when being interviewed by police. However, although that was the position under the 1994 Act, a special view was taken of children in court—because giving evidence in court is different from being asked questions in other circumstances, such as in a police station. With the best will in the world, courtroom proceedings can be very daunting for little children. As I said, in its campaign, the NSPCC has recognised the difficulties of child victims who have to give evidence in court. Realistically, we have to recognise the special circumstances in cases involving young children.
We wonder why the Government have proposed such a change without consultation—or much fanfare. It would be interesting to know what issues might have been raised if there had been consultation. A bit of fanfare has surrounded the Bill—I do not think that anyone could say that it has been undersold. Perhaps "never knowingly undersold" would be the best description of the Bill. Nevertheless, we are concerned by the way in which the Government have undertaken the change.
I have expressed our concerns on the matter. However, in order to allow the House to make some progress on other subjects, I shall not press it to a vote. As I said, the Government have taken an extraordinarily contradictory position on a matter that the Prime Minister himself as a matter of high constitutional principle. If principles can


be abandoned so lightly, we wonder what message will be sent, and what will happen to the principles that the Government are currently espousing.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 31, line 39, at end insert
'and the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple form part of the City of London'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 47

POWERS OF YOUTH COURTS

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 36, line 8, at end insert—
'(1 A) Where a person is remitted under subsection (1) above—

(a) he shall have no right of appeal against the order of remission;
(b) the remitting court shall adjourn proceedings in relation to the offence; and
(c) subsections (1B) and (IC) below shall apply.

(1B) The following, namely—

(a) section 128 of the 1980 Act; and
(b) all other enactments (whenever passed) relating to remand or the granting of bail in criminal proceedings,

shall have effect in relation to the remitting court's power or duty to remand the person on the adjournment as if any reference to the court to or before which the person remanded is to be brought or appear after remand were a reference to the court to which he is being remitted ("the other court").
(1C) The other court may deal with the case in any way in which it would have power to deal with it if all proceedings relating to the offence which took place before the remitting court had taken place before the other court.'—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 56

BAIL: RESTRICTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES OF HOMICIDE OR RAPE

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 43, leave out lines 10 to 16.
It is a relief to take part in the proceedings, albeit at such a late stage, in view of the fact that other legislation denied me the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, something that 1 had anticipated doing for some months.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced five key changes to the right of accused persons to bail pending trial. At that time, Government estimates were that 50,000 offences were committed each year by people on bail. The changes that were made then contributed significantly to the recent reduction in crime.
One of the changes contained in section 25 of the 1994 Act provides a bar to bail for defendants charged with or convicted of an offence of homicide or rape if they have a previous conviction for a homicide or rape offence. Clause 56 seeks to amend that provision, to remove the bar to bail and introduce instead an exceptional circumstances test.
The test would in the main be the responsibility of a police officer, presumably a duty sergeant, or a magistrate before whom the accused person would appear. They would decide whether the exceptional circumstances test was met and, if so, would grant bail. We disagree with that provision; hence amendment No. 64. In Committee, there was a lively debate on this matter, which I read with some interest and which I dare say the Minister will recall. I do not propose to detain the House by rehearsing it again now; nor do I intend to tempt the Minister to anticipate European Court judgments—we think the issues are fundamental and stand on their own.
It is important to remind the House, however, that in Committee, Conservative Members pressed an amendment requiring any decisions about bail in respect of defendants in homicide or rape cases, where the defendants had a previous conviction, to be taken only by a High Court judge. We do not think that the Minister gave an adequate explanation of why the precaution of having a High Court judge's decision was so unacceptable, given the importance that the Government appear to attach to including the exceptional circumstances test.
More to the point, we do not believe that the Government have made a case as to why the 1994 Act should be changed at all in this regard. In view of that, amendment No. 64 seeks to delete clause 56, leaving the position as it currently stands—with an absolute bar to bail in such cases.
The Government's view appears to be that the 1994 Act's provision was not justified. However, Parliament approved it. The argument took place then, and is over. Parliament believed that the measure was necessary to protect the public. Ministers have not thus far provided any compelling evidence that this absolute bar to bail has created difficulty. When the 1994 Act was being considered, Labour failed to support the provision of such protection, although just about everything else in that legislation, which the current Prime Minister, who was then shadow Home Secretary, described as "gimmicks", has stood the test of time. Clearly, with the responsibility of government, a more mature view has thankfully emerged.
8.15 pm
If the Government get their way, however, and clause 56 remains in the Bill, it will be possible for a convicted murderer or rapist to be allowed out on bail when charged with a similar offence in the future. That is the purpose of clause 56.
We do not seek to criticise custody sergeants or magistrates in general or suggest that they are incapable of taking decisions about bail. They exercise such powers regularly and do so with considerable care and diligence. However, misjudgments do arise, wrong information is given, and there can be misunderstandings.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that misunderstandings may occur in such circumstances. Can he give me one example of any case before 1994 which is on all fours with what he is proposing and where such a thing has occurred?

Mr. Greenway: I said that I was not going to repeat all the arguments that were made at the time of the 1994


legislation. The point is that Parliament accepted that strengthening protection in such cases was necessary. However, the Minister anticipates the point that I was about to make which clearly justifies the need for caution.
The number of cases in which rapists on release from prison subsequently attack other women—or in which people convicted of murder or, as is often the case, of manslaughter, subsequently kill again—surely indicates that any known offender in these categories who is subsequently arrested and charged with a repeat offence should not be granted bail. That is the only approach that achieves total consistency and the complete elimination of risk. That was the purpose of the 1994 legislation. As I said, in Committee the Minister could not say where there had been any difficulty with that. We believe that in order to ensure the complete elimination of risk and to achieve total consistency there should be an absolute bar to bail in such cases.
It may be argued that there could be cases in which it might be wrong—I think the Minister tried to advance this argument in Committee—to remand in custody someone facing trial for a second homicide offence if, for example, he was previously convicted of manslaughter which might have involved negligence behind the wheel of a car or negligence in failing to fulfil a professional duty. On the other hand, such a case would not proceed without compelling evidence. A custodial sentence would follow conviction, which tends to suggest that the balance of the argument should be to remand in custody. Such cases would be very rare, and the phrase used in the Bill—"exceptional circumstances"—could well be more liberally interpreted. Only time would tell.
What is much more likely is that, based on an unreliable, if not erroneous, assessment of an individual's mental state or preponderance to reoffend, someone who would pose a serious risk to the community would be granted bail and released. What are we to say to a victim's family when someone on bail kills someone else or commits rape? It is no good relying on the benefit of hindsight to conclude that a wrong decision was taken. The harm that has been caused cannot be reversed.
Those difficult and important issues require Parliament to balance the rights and freedoms of individuals with those of society. In our judgment, that balance is best struck by leaving the law as it stands. The bar to bail for defendants convicted of homicide or rape, when subsequently charged with a similar offence, is surely the minimum protection that the public should expect the law to provide. I invite the House to support the amendment to delete clause 56.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's argument relies on the fact that Parliament made a decision on a previous occasion and that it was wrong for Parliament to reconsider the issue. That goes against the basic constitutional principle of one Parliament not binding another. I put that argument aside. Parliament is entitled to reconsider the issue.
The Labour party argued against the introduction of the provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We continue to believe that it is bad law and against the interests of justice. We have every confidence in the ability of the police and the courts to make the right decision in such cases, just as they could before 1994. We are unaware of any example of bail having been granted

in such a case. We were mindful then, and remain aware, of public concern about some bail decisions. The decision should remain with those in possession of the full facts, but the public must have confidence in the process.
We are not repealing section 25 of the 1994 Act; we are improving it. Ordinarily, there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless there are substantial grounds to believe that the defendant will abscond, commit an offence or obstruct the course of justice. In the absence of such grounds, the defendant must be released on bail. Clause 56 reverses that general presumption. The presumption will be that the defendant is taken into custody. The burden will be on the defendant to show that the circumstances of his case are exceptional and justify his release on bail. We do not expect many, if any, defendants to overcome that hurdle.
There are also existing safeguards to insure against any unacceptable risk to the public as a result of the judicial discretion that we are proposing to restore. First, there is the reversal of the presumption in favour of bail. Secondly, the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which applies to cases involving any offence attracting a maximum penalty of five years or more in prison, gives the prosecution a right of appeal to a Crown court judge against a magistrates court decision to grant bail. The defendant must be kept in custody pending the outcome of the appeal. Thirdly, the Bail Act 1976 says that if a defendant who has been charged with any such offence is granted bail and representations have been made that he should be denied bail, the court must state its reasons for granting bail and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
The new provision allows some flexibility to prevent injustice, ensures that the protection of the public remains a primary concern and provides a tough additional safeguard against bad bail decisions in particularly serious cases. I shall give an example of an exceptional case—such a case has not happened yet—in which we might want to consider bail.
Let us consider a doctor who had a previous conviction for manslaughter as a result of euthanasia. He had turned up on all previous occasions while on bail and there was no reason to believe that he would not turn up on bail. A condition of bail when charged with a second offence could be that he should not practise as a doctor, so there would be no danger to the public and nobody would think that there was. There would be every reason to believe that he would not break that bail condition. Would the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) say that the courts and the police should not be able even to consider bail? The public would want to think carefully. An American doctor, whose name I forget, was involved in similar circumstances.
I am not saying that bail should be granted in such cases, but, if there are exceptional circumstances, we should trust the police and the courts to decide whether bail is appropriate. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, this is about whether we trust the police and the courts. For decades, they have had the power to grant bail. No one has provided evidence of any case in which they could not be trusted. The Tory party has made itself the party that has no trust in the police or in our courts. The Tories are stirring up fears that the public face killers, murderers or rapists on the streets. They seem to believe


that the police will irresponsibly release such people. They are stirring up those fears with no evidence and great irresponsibility.
The hon. Member for Ryedale shakes his head. During his speech, he was reasonable. However, he has issued a press release that says:
Convicted murderers and rapists could be wandering the streets on bail.
That is not what he said this evening, but he has put out that statement to the press and the public. That is an irresponsible statement which could stir up fears among the public. If he is serious, he should not make such flagrant attempts to create fear on our streets. The fear of crime is bad enough. A responsible Member of Parliament should not put out such statements. He knows perfectly well that we shall not do anything of the sort. We are trying to make young offenders accept responsibility for their bad behaviour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his irresponsible statement.
No serious commentator has said that we cannot trust the police or the courts to make the right decisions in such cases. The safeguards are there. The Tories should stop undermining trust in our police and our courts, and stop making wild claims designed to stir up fear on our streets. We are dealing with a serious issue. The hon. Gentleman's press statement does not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves.

Mr. Greenway: Well, we really have touched a nerve. The Minister has made three statements that make our case. First, he said that the situation has not arisen yet. The Government have failed miserably to demonstrate any reason why the 1994 Act should be amended. The fact that the circumstances have not arisen underlines our concern that, if the bar to bail is removed, it will be possible for someone previously convicted of homicide—or, more probably, of rape—to reoffend again if granted bail.
I made no criticism of the police. I went out of my way to point out that the police do a very good job and do it with diligence. A decision on exceptional circumstances might be taken by a court rather than a custody sergeant. Who knows what the circumstances would be? Our clear view is that there should be a bar as the best means of protecting the public. That is why we implemented the provision in the 1994 Act.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, based on the pre-1994 evidence and the fact that there is no evidence that the police or the courts have ever made what he calls "mistakes" in such cases, he can trust the police and the courts to make those decisions?

Mr. Greenway: We have not trawled through every single case, but the Minister must accept that there have been numerous cases where those convicted of rape, murder or manslaughter—most likely manslaughter, which is why they are released much earlier—reoffend when they are released. If they have been arrested and recharged with a further similar offence, common sense suggests that if one is in the business of protecting the

public from those people, the balance of the issues lies in the public interest, not in granting bail under any circumstances.
I said that for there to be a question of remand in custody pending trial, the Crown Prosecution Service would have to have considered all the evidence. There would have to be a compelling case, considered strong enough to take to court and, on conviction, there would almost certainly be a long custodial sentence. It therefore seems illogical to argue about whether, in such circumstances, bail is appropriate.
The Minister also said that he did not expect many defendants to overcome that hurdle. That suggests that the argument is really about a point of principle. There is a meeting of two absolute views: the public generally support our view, which is that there should be an absolute bar to bail; the Government clearly do not agree.
We have made the argument, and we stand by it. We shall not seek to press the issue to a Division, but we thought it right to have this debate and to draw the public's attention to it—hence the press release put out by central office. We wanted to let people know that the Government say that they are tough on crime, yet on this issue they are failing to give the public the protection that they deserve.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 44, line 33, after 'section' insert 'and section 51(2C) below'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 62

REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 46, line 38, after 'any' insert 'particular'.

No. 48, in page 47, line 29, leave out
'by which the order is made'
and insert 'responsible for the order'.

No. 49, in page 47, line 34, at end insert—
'(9) In this section and sections 63 and 64 below, references to the court responsible for a drug treatment and testing order are references to—

(a) the court by which the order is made; or
(b) where another court is specified in the order in accordance with subsection (10) below, that court.

(10) Where the area specified in a drug treatment and testing order made by a magistrates' court is not the area for which the court acts, the court may, if it thinks fit, include in the order provision specifying for the purposes of subsection (9) above a magistrates' court which acts for that area.'—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 63

PERIODIC REVIEWS

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 47, line 40, leave out 'making' and insert 'responsible for'.

No. 21, in page 48, line 29, leave out 'one' and insert 'either or both'.

No. 22, in page 48, line 31, leave out 'or'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 64

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 49, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'give' in line 24 and insert—
'(1A) Where, in the case of a drug treatment and testing order made by a magistrates' court, another magistrates' court is responsible for the order, the court making the order shall forthwith send copies of the order to the other court.
(2) Where a drug treatment and testing order is made or amended under section 63(2) above, the court responsible for the order shall forthwith or, in a case falling within subsection (1A) above, as soon as reasonably practicable'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 67

REPARATION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 52, line 18, after 'sentence' insert
'or a sentence under section 53(1) of the 1933 Act'.

No. 24, in page 52, line 21, leave out
'an action plan order or a compensation order'
and insert
'or an action plan order'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 69

ACTION PLAN ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 54, line 4, after 'sentence' insert
'or a sentence under section 53(1) of the 1933 Act,' .—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 72

BREACH OF REQUIREMENTS IN SUPERVISION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 56, line 40, leave out from 'him' to end of line 44 and insert—

'(i) subject to section 16A(1) of this Act, an order under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (attendance centre orders); or
(ii) subject to section 16B of this Act, an order under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (curfew orders);'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 74

DUTIES AND POWERS OF COURT

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 59.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 79

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 62, line 27, after 'against' insert
', or a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 with respect to,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 87, in page 63, line 8, at end insert
'and any aggravating factors based on a victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or disability'.
Government amendment No. 28.

Mr. Michael: The amendment makes it clear that the sentencing guideline provisions apply to cases before the Court of Appeal when the Attorney-General has made a referral to it, as well as to cases where the offender appeals against sentence.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 gave the Attorney-General the power to refer serious cases to the Court of Appeal when a sentence appeared to be unduly lenient. In the past few years, the Court of Appeal has, on occasions, established sentencing guidelines as a result of such cases. An example is the 1989 sentencing guideline on incest in the case of Attorney-General reference No. 1 of 1989. In view of the importance of the Attorney-General's powers, it is clear that such cases need to be covered. The amendment seeks to remove any doubt about whether such cases are covered—they are.
Amendment No. 87 would require the Court of Appeal to include in its sentencing guidelines aggravating factors relating to the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or disability. The Government have the greatest sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. We deplore offences that are driven by any of the motivating factors in the amendment. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) helpfully suggested that the sentencing guidelines provisions in the Bill might provide an opportunity to establish guidelines on the treatment of homophobic violence. The sentencing guidelines are likely to be helpful in that regard.
The mechanism of the advisory panel provides a vehicle through which experience and opinion on such matters can be fed. The sentencing advisory panel will be able to receive views from those who have had direct experience of the sort of problems that are highlighted, and will be able to point out concerns about patterns of sentencing in relation to such matters. It will then be able to pass views to the Court of Appeal. Thus, the mechanism will be sensitive to experience in the community of the outcomes of sentencing on such matters.
Ultimately, it will be for the Court of Appeal to decide on guidelines, having regard to the requirements set out in the Bill. It would not be right for the Court of Appeal to be told that it must include certain aggravating factors; nor is it necessary to do so. Those factors are unlikely to be relevant aggravating factors in many of the cases before the court. For example, none of those factors would be at all relevant to a case of causing death by drink-driving. The aggravating factors in those circumstances are more likely to include matters such as the amount of alcohol consumed, whether the offender failed to stop after the accident, or excessive speed. Although those are important issues, they are not part of the list suggested in the amendment.
It is widely acknowledged that the courts need to have regard to a multitude of aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing. Does that mean that the factors in the amendment are more important than other factors? Would


that be the effect in law? Clearly, there are occasions when they should be regarded as important, and others when they should be regarded as less important, depending on the facts of the case. Is an attack based on an offender's gender worse than an attack where a weapon is involved? Those are difficult judgments to make, yet we would raise that issue if we included the provision in the Bill.
Why do we not require the Court of Appeal to include mitigating factors? We believe that it is best to leave those matters to the courts. After deep consideration, considerable thought and debate, we have created a statutory provision on racial crime because this is a widespread problem, which does specific damage to community relations and social stability. It not only damages the victims and those associated with them, but tears a rift in the fabric of society. That is the difference, as we explained in earlier debates.
The courts are already required in sentencing to account of all the mitigating and aggravating factors of the offence and the offender. Sentencing guidelines have always included aggravating factors. To give just one example, one of the most well-known sentencing guidelines, the case of Billam, lists a number of serious aggravating factors in rape cases, including where
the victim is either very old or very young".
The sentencing guideline provisions in the Bill are important, but they build and improve on the current system of sentencing guidelines and they are not intended to, nor do they, interfere with the independence of the courts. The amendment carries a much graver risk of interfering with the courts' discretion.
I hope that, although there may be issues that hon. Members want to raise in the debate, I have explained the reasons why it would not be advisable to put those matters on the face of the Bill, and how they can be dealt with within the structures that we propose.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for his warm response to the intention behind amendment No. 87, which I tabled, even though he has said that he will not accept it as worded. He was correct to refer to our debates in Committee on homophobic offences—offences motivated by hatred of people because of their sexuality. Amendment No. 87 arises from two of the issues that we discussed in Committee: first, aggravating factors based on age, gender and disability; and secondly, whether such issues should be determined through sentencing guidelines rather than through the mechanism of a new clause, as we originally proposed in Committee. Amendment No. 87 is a constructive attempt to reconcile some of the suggestions that were put to us, including the helpful suggestion from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
Liberal Democrats remain concerned about these issues. In Committee, we cited a considerable amount of detailed evidence from such bodies as Stonewall, which, in its survey "Queerbashing", pointed out that that offence is committed daily in our streets. We also referred to the fact that, last year, the Home Secretary grouped that offence with offences motivated by racial hatred, with which the Bill, fortunately, also deals.
I am pleased that the Minister said that the appeal courts would consider these issues, even though the

Government will not direct them to do so in legislation. Paragraphs (a) and (d) of clause 79(3) specify
the need to promote consistency in sentencing
and
the need to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system".
If we are to achieve those goals, we believe that the courts will have to address the aggravating factors about which we are talking.
Homophobic assaults are significantly under-reported precisely because of a lack of public confidence. Sentencing guidelines are important not only because of the sentences that they suggest, but because to mention them in open court will be to give a strong signal that the court is taking aggravating factors seriously—if, in sentencing, the judge says that he or she has taken on board an aggravating factor, that will give a huge boost to public confidence, and many more offences will be reported.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are helpful, and may be complemented by two other factors. First, the crime and disorder audit can take account of the experience of particular groups, which can then be considered in decisions on strategy. The second factor is the attitude of the police. The Association of Chief Police Officers, for example, has made it clear that it recognises that the police must listen to and understand the experience of particular groups, such as the lesbian and gay communities, to deal with specific crimes.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful for those comments. We have strongly welcomed the community safety strategies and the idea that communities should be asked about what they want. We believe that communities will, through those consultation exercises, express their desire to receive the protection that we are talking about. I am also grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has taken on board the issues that we raised—hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the importance of boosting public confidence.
Action is needed throughout the criminal justice system. The Minister referred to the police, who we believe are now making strenuous efforts. However, the tools must also be given to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that it knows that evidence on aggravating factors must be collected and that such evidence is worth presenting in court.
Moreover, the courts—including the judges and the magistrates—must also take these issues seriously and treat cases consistently. The experience that has been reported to us is that some aggravating factors are taken more seriously than others. In some cases, they can even be used as mitigating factors—in citing the homosexual panic defence, for example, individuals justify their attacks on gay people by saying, "I was scared because he was making an approach, so I had to hit him, guv." We believe that such a defence is unacceptable, and we hope that the sentencing guidelines will reflect that.
We are grateful to the Government for their constructive approach. We want to continue dialogue both with Ministers in the Home Office and, crucially, with Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department, who have specific responsibility for the guidance that is offered to the courts. We hope that the measures applying to


offences motivated by racial hatred will also apply to other offences motivated by hatred—they are often committed by the same people. Moreover, we hope that the courts will maintain public confidence by dealing consistently and seriously with such offences across the country. We must send a message to the people who commit these crimes that the Government and the courts will not accept such behaviour.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 63, line 22, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section, the Court is seised of a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 if it has given leave under subsection (1) of that section and the reference has not been disposed of.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 84

SEXUAL OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 65, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 66.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 104 and 105.

Ms Cunningham: The Minister will not be surprised that I have tabled amendment No. 149, as I have previously flagged up the issue of removing the limits on extended sentences. He will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for more than a few minutes—both he and I have pressing engagements elsewhere—and that I shall not press the amendment to a Division.
Clause 84 introduces the concept of extended sentences for sexual and violent offenders, which I believe will become a useful adjunct to the sentencing options that are currently available to Scottish courts. The concept is welcome, but I do not see why there should be a limit on the extended sentence, particularly on sentences that are given in the High Court. People in the profession have queried why High Court judges should have a capping limit of 10 years when, under common law, a life sentence is available. It is understandable that some limits should apply in the sheriff courts for summary and solemn cases, but High Court cases involve only offenders who have committed the most serious offences.
I am sure that the Minister will not deny that an individual such as Cronin—about whom there has been a great deal of public disquiet both in Scotland and in Ireland—who seems utterly unwilling or unable to change his behaviour, needs to be watched for the rest of his life, whether he is in prison or out of prison. I doubt whether many people would fall into that category—at least, I certainly hope not. The fact that there are only a few, however, is no reason for the Government to set their face against the concept of an extension for life.
I expect that, like an ordinary sentence, the extensions would be subject to appeal. Perhaps I have overlooked the part of the Bill where that is specified, so I hope that the Minister can confirm it for the record. I hope that he will also say what provisions there will be to review extended sentences to take account of any changed circumstances that may arise.

Mr. McLeish: I rise to respond at a gloomy moment in the fixture between Scotland and Morocco—my pager

reliably informs me that, after 18 minutes, we were one-nil down. However, we are an aspirational country, so I await with interest a further message on my pager—[Interruption.] I do not want to be sidestepped into talking about last night's match, but, if pushed, I will.
I shall respond briefly on amendment No. 149 and speak to the Government amendments. First, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to impose sentences that will protect the public from serious criminals. As the provisions stand—taken together with existing legislation—they will achieve that objective.
The provisions in the clause will allow the court to impose an additional period of supervision of up to 10 years in the case of a sex offender. That is on top of any determinate custodial element to the sentence, which may in itself be very lengthy. The maximum is longer for sex offenders than for violent offenders because all the evidence shows that the behaviour of sex offenders is more deeply entrenched. The maximum extension period for violent offenders is therefore less—five years, rather than 10, where a determinate custodial sentence of four years or more is imposed. A five-year extension period could be imposed on a violent offender who would have received a custodial sentence of 10 years, but whom the court considered still to be likely to pose a risk of serious harm to the public when he ceased to be on licence. Therefore, he would either be in custody or on licence and subject to recall to custody for 15 years—well past the point at which most violent offenders, unlike sex offenders, have ceased to be a risk to the public. Should the court decide it necessary, it can impose a discretionary life sentence, which is close to what the hon. Member for Perth appears to want to achieve through the amendment; that power already exists.
The clause contains an additional power. I mentioned the difference between the maximum for sexual offences and for violent offences. If it becomes clear with the operation of the legislation that a longer additional period is desirable in the case of violent offenders, the maximum may be increased up to the same level as for sex offenders by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution. The Government will have no hesitation in seeking Parliament's approval for that change if it should prove necessary.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the clause will provide the courts with adequate powers. Like all legislation, we will keep it under close scrutiny so that we can review what is happening. Our objectives are, I think, the same, but we are content with the current provisions of the clause.
On appeals, an extended sentence is a sentence and, therefore, appealable like any other sentence. I pointed out earlier that conditions can be removed by the Secretary of State if they are no longer appropriate—for example, on residential changes. There will be monitoring and review, and I think that the point about appeals has been tidied up. Given those comments, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Government amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 109 are consequential on the introduction of clause 109 and are intended to ensure that sentence calculation rules apply similarly to extended sentences as to other custodial sentences.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO EXTENDED SENTENCES

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 68, line 45, after first 'to' insert
'section 1A(c) of this Act and'

No. 105, in page 69, line 21, after 'In' insert 'section 1A(c) and'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 88

REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 106, in page 71, line 29, after 'any' insert 'particular'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 94

OFFENCES RACIALLY AGGRAVATED

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 78, line 28, leave out
'of, or association with members of,'
and insert '(or presumed membership) of.

No. 108, in page 78, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (2)(a) above—
membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed" means presumed by the offender.
(2B) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above whether or not the offender's malice and ill-will is also based, to any extent, on—

(a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or
(b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 97

POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 81, line 7, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 19 on page 82.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 98, page 82, line 20, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 46 on page 83.
Government amendments Nos. 161, 109 to 113, 117 to 120 and 143 to 146.

Mr. Greenway: The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced the concept of tagging offenders as an alternative sentence to imprisonment. As a Back-Bench member of the Standing Committee of that Bill, I recall during its progress and previously being a strong advocate of the tagging option. At that time, the Labour party took a wholly different view, and I make no point other than that we welcome its conversion now.
However, the House has to ask itself: why the change? We think that the clear and singular answer is concern about prison places, which in turn means concern about the need to save money. I will not labour the point about prison places, except to say that we have yet to be told what the effect of the comprehensive spending review will be on the Home Office budget, and in turn on prison budgets and the provision of new places. We hope that the expansion of prison places in line with the increase in the prison population will continue.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that to be an indefinite process—that prison numbers will continue to expand, and, year by year, spending reviews will continue to provide more money for them?

Mr. Greenway: That is an important point, but the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the answer is that it is not the House or the Government, or the Opposition parties, who sentence prisoners to custody. The job of the Government and the House is to ensure adequate provision of prison places. I shall deal with an alternative to the Government's proposals in the Bill, which I hope will encourage the right hon. Gentleman to think that the Opposition are not pursuing a lock-everyone-up policy—far from it: the 1991 Act contained many important reforms of non-custodial sentencing, the bulk of which have now bedded down well into sentencing patterns, and I recall that much concern and suspicion was expressed in the Standing Committee on that Bill.
The proposals in clauses 97 and 98 together provide a detailed scheme for the early release of prisoners serving short-term sentences of more than three months. A prisoner sentenced to four to eight months will serve only a quarter of the term ordered by the court. That means—this has become a colloquial expression—that six months will mean six weeks in prison. For the remainder of the time, up to the point where the prisoner would normally have been released—at the halfway point of the sentence—he or she would be subject to a curfew condition, backed by a tagging requirement to ensure that he or she spent at least nine hours a day on home detention.
Clearly, that provision will affect large numbers of prisoners, who will as a consequence be released early. Notwithstanding the tagging condition or the risk assessment that we are promised, that is a retrograde step: it will give prisoners the opportunity to reoffend, which will consequently undermine the protection of the public. The Minister and the Home Office ministerial team need to brace themselves for significant public disapproval when such cases occur and are publicised.
In the exchange a few minutes ago, we were talking about rare cases and cases in extremis. Here we are talking about the run-of-the-mill Johnny Burglar being released early, spending some time at home because he is tagged, but also spending some time out on the street reoffending. We think that this does not achieve honesty or consistency in sentencing, because if the risk assessment is to mean anything, it will determine that some prisoners will not be released early. More to the point—this is why we chose to have this debate on the Floor of the House—we do not believe that this is the best use of tagging and curfew.
9 pm
Tagging should be a sentence of the court. I must say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it should be seen as an alternative to custody where some restriction of liberty is thought appropriate and a prison sentence is not. Tagging was never considered as a viable sentencing option that would provide an excuse to halve sentences imposed by the courts. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that prisoners would be released under the procedure towards the end of their sentences. However, the public will see that tagging occurs within weeks, if not days, of sentence. That will not inspire public confidence in sentencing.
Ministers say that tagging introduces self-discipline, and enables prisoners to be better prepared for life outside prison. Over time, curfew orders certainly can have beneficial effects, and both sides agree that they are a valuable option. Under the Bill, however, many short-term prisoners will have a curfew condition that lasts only a few weeks—it may be as little as two or three weeks. The reduced time served in prison will mean even less time for meaningful work or rehabilitation. We do not believe that the Government's arguments in favour of curfews supported by electronic tagging really make sense.
Ministers have suggested that a risk assessment for each qualifying prisoner will determine suitability. Who will carry that out? What assurance can we have that the assessment process will not be undermined by the need to reduce overcrowding in prison, or to avoid investment in additional places? The clause also provides power for the Secretary of State to amend the various time periods in the proposals. That gives rise to general concern that the proposals will be used as a means to release large numbers of prisoners into the community long before their sentences have been concluded.
We oppose the early release of prisoners under the scheme. That is why we tabled our amendment proposing to remove clause 97. We want an extensive scheme for tagging to reinforce curfew orders, but it should be a proper sentence of the court. Courts could then decide to impose curfew sentences as opposed to short-term custodial sentences where circumstances dictated that that would be beneficial. That is a better and more honest way to relieve pressure on the Prison Service, and to ease overcrowding. It is certainly a more appropriate use of tagging-based curfew sentences.
The Government's approach runs the risk—I say this in all sincerity—of bringing both custodial sentences and the use of tagging into disrepute with the public. The Government would then reap the worst of both worlds. They should think again.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment Nos. 72 and 73 affect clauses that were not opposed in Committee, and would kill off the home detention curfew. The Government therefore oppose them. Clause 97 establishes the new power under which prisoners near the end of short sentences may, subject to passing a risk assessment carried out by the Prison Service, be considered for an electronically monitored curfew. Clause 98 provides the framework under which a prisoner will serve the period of his home detention curfew.
When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced this initiative, he said that tagging had an important role to play in preparing prisoners for their

reintegration into society, and that it could help prisoners by establishing some structure and order to their lives and imposing discipline that may assist in taking
proper responsibility for working or looking for work, for keeping their families together and for maintaining self-control."—[Official Report, 20 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 454.]
The case for introducing an element of tagging into the last part of a short-term prison sentence is strong. Rather than imposing an outside discipline in the prison, its impact would be to get people to impose self-discipline so that they begin to take responsibility for their behaviour and understand that they can change it and cease their offending behaviour. The effect of teaching prisoners self-discipline will be safer streets, because there will be less likelihood of crime. The Home Secretary also said that it would be the height of irresponsibility not to take advantage of the opportunities offered by technology, thereby contributing to the safety of society at large by improving the prospect of the prisoner's resettlement.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) appeared rather unconcerned about prison places. In Committee, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) graphically described the consequences of prison overcrowding—the lack of supervision, the opportunities for misbehaviour, and the fact that it produces more, and worse, criminals. The previous Government created legislation that ensured that more people went to prison, but they failed to finance the prison places. As a result, the new Government had to find £112 million to provide further prison accommodation.
The extra resources announced by the Home Secretary will be used to increase the operational capacity of prisons by 3,820 places. That includes 1,540 new places to be opened in the form of new house blocks, cell reclaims and the continued operation of HMP Weare. Additional resources would also provide staffing and funding for regime activities to support the placing of an additional 2,280 prisoners in existing prisons. In total, the prison building programme will provide 9,700 additional places by the end of 2000, by a combination of expanding existing prisons and building new ones. To date, 4,700 places have been delivered. The new Government accept their responsibility to deal with those issues.
I stress that not all offenders will qualify for home detention curfew. Certain categories of very serious offenders, particularly sex offenders, will be dealt with very carefully indeed. Even if they do not qualify, they will not be released without restriction. There will be a cut-off point below which curfews will generally be impractical and of little value.
The home detention curfew is not an easy option. Offenders will be required to spend nine hours a day or more under curfew. The curfew is an on-going part of the sentence and should be seen as such. The sentence does not end with the custodial element, and failure to comply with the demanding curfew will result in the offender being returned to prison.
The Opposition amendments would stop an important new scheme dead in its tracks. They would mean turning our back on the clear and valuable benefits that can be drawn from this emerging technology. They would perpetuate unnecessary overcrowding and the associated problems that that creates for the Prison Service. They would deliberately prevent us from developing new and constructive ways to manage the transition from custody


to reintegration into the community. As a result, there would be more offending, not less. They should therefore be resisted.
Government amendment No. 161 is consequential on clause 99. It is needed because the clause creates an unintended anomaly in respect of an activated suspended sentence. The amendment is uncontroversial, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully explained the need for such an amendment when he wrote to the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to describe the purpose of Government amendments. However, I shall set out that explanation for the record.
At present, the law allows an activated suspended sentence to be regarded as having begun on the date on which it is activated, or ordered to take effect under section 23 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. Under clause 99, the key date for the purposes of deciding whether sentences are to be aggregated is that on which the sentence was passed.
Where there is a suspended sentence, there is scope for doubt about whether the key date is the point at which the original court imposed the suspended sentence or the date on which it takes effect. To maintain the current position on how such sentences relate to any others being served by the offender, it is necessary to make it clear that an activated suspended sentence is passed for the purposes of clause 99 at the time it takes effect. Amendment No. 161 achieves that.
Government amendments Nos. 109 to 113, 117 to 120 and 143 to 146 are minor. They are consequential on the changes in sentence calculation arising from clause 109, or address anomalies in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.
Amendment No. 145 repeals provisions that require a prisoner released from one sentence and subsequently ordered back to prison under section 16 of the 1993 Act to be released on licence in certain circumstances in respect of the order and any new sentence. The intention is that, under the revised arrangement, the original sentence will continue to exist, and consequently any subsequent requirement to be released on licence from that sentence, regardless of whether a section 16 order of fresh sentence is imposed. That is consistent with the amendments to the 1993 Act made by clause 109.
The original sentence will not form a single term with a section 16 order and any new sentence. It is therefore no longer considered necessary to require a prisoner to be released on licence in respect of his section 16 order and new sentence.
I hope that, on the basis of those comments, the hon. Member for Ryedale will be prepared to withdraw his amendments, and that the House will accept the Government amendments.

Mr. Greenway: I warned the Minister not to argue about the provision of prison places, but he could not resist the temptation. It is clearly on record that, in the years leading up to the 1997 general election, prison capacity increased by over 20 per cent.–11,000 additional places—as a result of the previous Government's prison building programme.
The anticipation of an increase in numbers arising from criminal justice and public order legislation passed by the previous Government, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, also led to the planning of nine new prisons. It is to the Government's credit that they have continued that programme, but the Minister is wrong to suggest that the previous Government failed to address the need to create improved and additional capacity in the prison service—the facts reveal a wholly different scenario.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt accept that the new Government have applied a certain amount of expenditure restraint. If the previous Government were so free with their largesse on prisons, why does he think that the new Government have had to find £112 million of new money to try to correct the defects that they inherited from the previous Government?

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman's very silly argument is that, regardless of circumstances and developments, not another penny will need to be spent on any area of public policy, in addition to whatever public expenditure provisions were in place and planned when a Government of any party took office. It is preposterous nonsense.
The £112 million that the Minister refers to is very small in relation to the hundreds of millions—I guess it runs to billions—of pounds that was spent on the prison estate under the previous Government. As a Home Office Minister, who travels throughout the country visiting custodial institutions, he can see for himself the huge investment that was made following the riot at Strangeways prison—I think it was in 1990.
9.15 pm
If I remember rightly, the Minister was not then a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs; I do not think that he was in the House. Those of us who were, and who had the opportunity to visit Strangeways, made several recommendations. The entire contents of the Woolf report were warmly embraced by the previous Administration. Therefore, we should not, and cannot, take any strictures from the Government about lack of investment in the prison estate. They must respond to the circumstances as they find them: that is the job of Government.
We are not, as the Minister alleges, seeking to stop any tagging experiment dead in its tracks. On the contrary, we are the party which has advocated the use of tagging. We are suggesting to the Minister an alternative, which would command better public confidence than the alternative in the Bill.
The Minister prayed in aid the beneficial features of tagging to reinforce curfew orders. We agree, but we believe that if the Government go ahead with the scheme, it will undermine public confidence in custodial sentences that are served up to only a quarter point of the original sentence, and in the use of tagging, which the public regard as a soft option to prison. Obviously, our arguments have fallen on deaf ears, but, as in the previous debate, in which I took part, the Opposition believed it right to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that what the Government are doing is wrong. Now that we have done so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 99

EARLY RELEASE: TWO OR MORE SENTENCES.

Amendment made: No. 161, in page 84, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) Where a suspended sentence of imprisonment is ordered to take effect, with or without any variation of the original term, the occasion on which that order is made shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) above as the occasion on which the sentence is passed.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 109

EARLY RELEASE IN SCOTLAND: TWO OR MORE SENTENCES.

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 88, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 89.

No. 110, in page 89, line 27, at end insert—
'( ) for the words "a prisoner" there shall be substituted the words "an existing prisoner";'.

No. 111, in page 89, line 41, leave out first 'a' and insert 'an existing'.

No. 112, in page 90, line 45, at end insert—
'(8) In relation to a prisoner released on licence at any time under section I 6(7)(b) of the 1993 Act, section 17(1)(a) of the 1993 Act shall have effect as if after the word "Act" there were inserted the words "or a short term prisoner has been released on licence by virtue of section 16(7)(b) of this Act".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 112

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 91, line 34, after & 61(7)' insert 73(2)(b)(ii)'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Clause 119

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 95, line 2, leave out 'section 107' and insert 'sections 107 and 109(8)'.

No. 1, in page 95, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) section (Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful)(3);'.

No. 114, in page 95, line 26, at end insert—
'( ) paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to this Act and section 104 above so far as relating to that paragraph;'.

No. 115, in page 95, line 27, after 'paragraphs' insert '1,'

No. 116, in page 95, line 27, after 'and (3),' insert '11(1) and (2),'.

No. 162, in page 95, line 27, after '29,' insert '36B,'.

No. 2,in page 95, line 31, after 'Sections', insert
'(Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful)(4).'.

No. 3, in page 95, line 31, leave out 'section'.

No. 163, in page 95, line 33, after 'and (3),' insert '36B,'.

No. 164, in page 95, line 36, after '(3)' insert 36B'.

No. 165, in page 95, line 39, after '(3)' insert 36B'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Schedule 2

THE YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD: FURTHER PROVISIONS.

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 101, line 41, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 42 and insert
'out of money provided by Parliament pay to the Board such sums towards its expenses as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Schedule 3

PROCEDURE WHERE PERSONS ARE SENT FOR TRIAL UNDER SECTION 51.

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 105, line 44, at end insert—

'Use of depositions as evidence

.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, sub-paragraph (2) below applies where in pursuance of paragraph 4 above a person has his evidence taken as a deposition.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the deposition may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for an offence for which he was sent for trial under section 51 of this Act or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the deposition was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed;
(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that subparagraph (2) above shall not apply; or
(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) above applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Schedule 4

ENFORCEMENT ETC. OF DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 110, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) After sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
(4) In this Schedule, references to the court responsible for a drug treatment and testing order shall be construed in accordance with section 62(9) of the Crime and Disorder Act I998."'.

No. 54, in page 110, line 29, leave out
'by which the order is made'
and insert 'responsible for the order'.

No. 55, in page 110, line 43, leave out
'made by a magistrates' court'
and insert
'for which a magistrates' court is responsible'.

No. 56, in page 111, line 24, leave out 'did not make' and insert 'is not responsible for'.

No. 57, in page 111, line 33, leave out
'by which a drug treatment and testing was made'
and insert
'responsible for a drug treatment and testing order'.

No. 31, in page 112, line 13, leave out first 'above' and insert
'of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Schedule 5

ENFORCEMENT OF REPARATION AND ACTION PLAN ORDERS.

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 113, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) above, a reparation order or action plan order made on appeal from a decision of a magistrates' court or the Crown Court shall be treated as if it had been made by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court, as the case may be.'.

No. 89, in page 115, line 31, at end insert—
'(2A) The provisions of section 12 of the 1991 Act (curfew orders) shall apply for the purposes of paragraph 3(2)(a) above but as if—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to "before which he is convicted" there were substituted the words "Where a court considers it appropriate to make a curfew order in respect of any person in pursuance of paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the court"; and
(b) in subsection (8), for the words "on conviction" there were substituted the words "on the date on which his failure to comply with a requirement included in the reparation order or action plan order was proved to the court".

(2B) Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act (enforcement etc. of community orders), so far as relating to curfew orders, shall also apply for the purposes of that paragraph but as if—

(a) the power conferred on the magistrates' court by each of paragraphs 3(1)(d) and 7(2)(a)(ii) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the reparation order or action plan order, in any manner in which the appropriate court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court;
(b) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 4(1)(d) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with such a requirement, in any manner in which that court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to its satisfaction;
(c) the reference in paragraph 7( I )(b) to the offence in respect of which the order was made were a reference to the failure to comply in respect of which the curfew order was made; and
(d) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 8(2)(b) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the reparation order or action plan order, in any manner in which the appropriate court (if that order was made by a magistrates' court) or the Crown Court (if that order was made by the Crown Court) could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court.

(2C) For the purposes of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2B)(a) and (d) above, as applied by that sub-paragraph, if the reparation order or action plan order is no longer in force the appropriate court's powers shall be determined on the assumption that it is still in force.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Schedule 7

PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS: POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 120, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'there' in line 10 and insert—
'. After subsection (8) of section 7 of the 1969 Act (alterations in treatment of young offenders etc.)'.

No. 59, in page 134, line 7, after 'who' insert 'on conviction'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 134, line 34, at end insert—
' . After subsection (1) of section 56 of the 1933 Act (powers of other courts to remit young offenders to youth courts) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(1A) References in subsection (1) above to an offender's being committed for trial include references to his being sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act I 998."'.

No. 4, in page 135, line 39, at end insert—

'Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69)

In sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 16 (indecency between men etc.) of the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (punishments etc.), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

Sexual Offences Act 1967 (c. 60)

In section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (restriction on prosecutions), for the word "twenty-one" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".'.

No. 34, in page 135, line 39, at end insert—

'Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (c.69)

'. In subsection (4) of section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court), after the words "committed for trial" there shall be inserted the words ", or sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act I998,".'.

No. 35, in page 136, line 14 at end insert—
' . In subsection (2) of section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal against sentence following conviction on indictment), after the words "for either way offence)" there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (power of Crown Court to deal with summary offence where person sent for trial for indictable-only offence)".'.

No. 36, in page 136, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'after' in line 16 and insert—
' .—(1) In subsection (2) of section 10 of that Act (appeal against sentence in other cases dealt with at Crown Court), the words "(other than a supervision order within the meaning of that Part)" shall cease to have effect.
(2) In subsection (3) of that section,'.

No. 60, in page 136, line 37, at end insert—
'. In subsection (8) of section 7 of the 1969 Act (alterations in treatment of young offenders etc.), for the words from "person guilty" to "were begun" there shall be substituted the words "child or young person guilty of an offence".'.

No. 90, in page 137, line 11, at end insert—
' . After section 16A of the 1969 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Application of section 12 of Criminal Justice Act 1991 etc

16B.—(1) The provisions of section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (curfew orders) shall apply for the purposes of section 15(3)(a) of this Act but as if—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to "before which he is convicted" there were substituted the words "Where a court considers it appropriate to make a curfew order in respect of any person in pursuance of section 15(3)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the court"; and


(b) in subsection (8), for the words "on conviction" there were substituted the words "on the date on which his failure to comply with a requirement included in the supervision order was proved to the court".

(2) Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (enforcement etc. of community orders), so far as relating to curfew orders, shall also apply for the purposes of that section but as if—

(a) the power conferred on the magistrates' court by each of paragraphs 3(1)(d) and 7(2)(a)(ii) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the supervision order, in any manner in which the relevant court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court;
(b) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 4(1)(d) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with such a requirement, in any manner in which that court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to its satisfaction;
(c) the reference in paragraph 7(1)(b) to the offence in respect of which the order was made were a reference . to the failure to comply in respect of which the curfew order was made; and
(d) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 8(2)(b) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the supervision order, in any manner in which the relevant court (if that order was made by a magistrates' court) or the Crown Court (if that order was made by the Crown Court) could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court.

(3) For the purposes of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (d) above, as applied by that subsection, if the supervision order is no longer in force the relevant court's powers shall be determined on the assumption that it is still in force.

(4) In this section "relevant court" has the same meaning as in section 15 above."'.

No. 91, in page 137, line 35, after 'years' insert
'when the order is made'.

No. 92, in page 137, line 36, leave out from 'by' to end of line 37 and insert
'a local authority specified in the order.
( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) The local authority specified as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above shall be the local authority within whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside."'.

No. 93, in page 138, line 3, leave out 'After subsection (8)' and insert 'In subsection (4)'.

No. 94, in page 138, line 4, after 'orders)' insert
', for the words from "a probation officer" to the end there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
(a) a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the area for the time being specified in the order (whether under this subsection or by virtue of Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
(b) a person appointed for the purposes of those provisions by the probation committee for that area; or
(c) in the case of an offender under the age of 18 years when the order is made, a member of a youth offending team established by a local authority for the time being specified in the order (whether under this subsection or by virtue of that Part).

( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(4A) The local authority specified as mentioned in subsection (4)(c) above shall be the local authority within whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside.
( ) After subsection (8) of that section'.

No. 95, in page 138, leave out lines 8 to 13.

No. 38, in page 138, line 13, at end insert—
' . In subsection (2) of section 21 of the 1973 Act (restriction on imposing sentences of imprisonment etc. on persons not legally represented)—

(a) after the words "sentence or trial," there shall be inserted the words "or sent to that Court for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,"; and
(b) for the words "which committed him" there shall be substituted the words "which committed or sent him".

. In subsection (1)(b) of section 32 of the 1973 Act (enforcement etc. of fines imposed and recognizances forfeited by Crown Court), after the words "or dealt with" there shall be inserted the words ", or by which he was sent to that Court for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".'.

No. 39, in page 139, line 40, at end insert—
'36A. In subsection (4)(c) of section 125 of the 1980 Act (warrants)—

(a) the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) shall cease to have effect;
(b) in sub-paragraph (iii), for the words "or 97 above" there shall be substituted the words ", 97 or 97A above; and"; and
(c) after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

(iv) paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
36B. In section 126 of the 1980 Act (execution of certain warrants outside England and Wales)—
(a) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect;
(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(cc) warrants of arrest issued under section 97A above;"; and
(c) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the words "; and
(e) warrants of arrest issued under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act I998."'.

No. 40, in page 140, line 11, at end insert—
' . In subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1982 Act (general restriction on custodial sentences), for the words from "remanded in custody" to the end there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

'(a) remanded in custody;
(b) committed in custody for trial or sentence; or
(c) sent in custody for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998."'.

No. 41, in page 140, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (2) of that section—

(a) after the words "sentence or trial," there shall be inserted the words "or sent to that Court for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,"; and
(b) for the words "which committed him" there shall be substituted the words "which committed or sent him".'.

No. 117, in page 144, line 20, leave out from 'prisons)' to end of line 21 and insert'—
(a) in subsection (7)—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (7AA) below,";
(ii) for the words "a short-term or long-term prisoner within the meaning of there shall be substituted the words "any person who is, or is treated as, a long-term or short-term prisoner for the purposes of any provision of';
(iii) the words from "and the foregoing" to the end shall cease to have effect; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(7AA) Additional days shall not be awarded under rules made under subsection (7) above in respect of a sentence where the prisoner has at any time been released on licence, in relation to that sentence, under Part I of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; and any reference to a sentence in such rules shall be construed in accordance with section 27(5) of that Act.'.

No. 96, in page 149, line 13, at beginning insert
'in the case of a person under the age of 18 years on his release,'.

No. 97, in page 149, line 46, at end insert—
'( ) After paragraph 12(4) of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following sub—paragraphs—
(5) Where—

(a) the court amends a probation order or community service order under this paragraph;
(b) a local authority is specified in the order in accordance with section 2(2)(b) or 14(4)(c) of the 1973 Act; and
(c) the change, or proposed change, of residence also is
or would be a change of residence from the area of that authority to the area of another such authority,

the court shall further amend the order by substituting the other authority for the authority specified in the order.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) above "local authority" has the meaning given by section 42 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and references to the area of a local authority shall be construed in accordance with that section."'.

No. 118, in page 150, line 12, at end insert—
(In subsection (2) of that section at the end there shall be added the words "unless he has before that time been so released, in relation to that sentence, under any provision of this Act".'.

No. 119, in page 150, line 24, at end insert—
'. In section 5 of the 1993 Act (fine defaulters and persons in contempt of court)—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "to (4)"; and
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(4) Where a person has had imposed on him two or more terms of imprisonment or detention mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, sections IA and 27(5) of this Act shall apply to those terms as if they were terms of imprisonment." 
. In section 7 of the 1993 Act (children detained in solemn proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless he has before that time been so released, in relation to that sentence, under any provision of this Act";
(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

(2A) This subsection applies where a child detained under section 208 of the 1995 Act is sentenced, while so detained, to a determinate term of detention in a young offenders institution or imprisonment and, by virtue of section 27(5) of this Act, such terms of detention or imprisonment are treated as single term.

(2B) In a case where subsection (2A) applies and the single term mentioned in that subsection is less than four years, the provisions of this section shall apply.
(2C) In a case where subsection (2A) applies and the single term mentioned in that subsection is of four or more years—
(a) section 6 of this Act shall apply to him as if the single term were an equivalent sentence of detention in a young offenders institution, if that term is served in such an institution; and
(b) the provisions of this Act shall apply to him as if the single term were an equivalent sentence of imprisonment, if that term is served in a remand centre or a prison."; and
(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
here an order under subsection (3) above is made, the making of the order shall, if there is in force a licence relating to the person in respect of whom the order is made, have the effect of revoking that licence."; and
(d) in subsection (5) after the word "construed" there shall be inserted the words "and sections I A and 27 shall apply".
. In section 11 of the 1993 Act (duration of licences) subsections (3)(b) and (4) shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 120, in page 150, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) Paragraph (b) of that subsection shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 42, in page 152, line 46, after 'Ace insert '(compulsory disclosure by accused)'.

No. 43, in page 153, line 7, after 'Act' insert '(time limits: transitional)'.

No. 44, in page 153, line 12, at end insert—
'. In subsection (1)(a) of section 28 of that Act (introduction to Part III), after the words "committed for trial" there shall be inserted the words ", or sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,".
. In subsection (1) of section 39 of that Act (meaning of pre-trial hearing), after the words "committed for trial for the offence concerned" there shall be inserted the words ", after the accused has been sent for trial for the offence under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Amendments made: No 122, in page 155, line 13, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)'and insert '7,'.

No. 121, in page 155, line 13, leave out 'to' and insert '1A, 3,'.

No. 123, in page 155, line 16, at end insert
'and
(ii) after the word "3," there shall be inserted words "6(1)(b)(i) and (iii)";
( ) in sub-paragraph (2)(b) for the words "sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraph (3)";'

No. 124, in page 155, line 19, after "'sections' insert ' I A,'

No. 125, in page 155, line 36, leave out 'to' and insert '1A, 3,'.

No. 126, in page 155, line 36, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)' and insert '7,'.

No. 127, in page 155, line 38, at end insert
'and
(ii) after the word "3," there shall be inserted the words "6(1)(b)(i) and (iii),";'.

No. 128, in page 155, line 40, after "'sections' insert '1A,'.

No. 129, in page 156, line 27, leave out 'to 3' and insert '1A, 3, 3A'.

No. 130, in page 156, line 27, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)' and insert '7,'.

No. 131, in page 156, line 28, after '21' insert 26A'.

No. 132, in page 156, line 30, after 'Act")";' insert 'and
( ) for the words "the 1989 Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act");'.

No. 133, in page 156, line 32, after "'sections' insert '1A,'.

No. 134, in page 156, line 32, after '2(4)' insert '3A'.

No. 135, in page 156, line 32, after '21' insert 26A'.

No. 136, in page 156, line 36, leave out 'to 3' and insert '1A, 3, 3A'.

No. 137, in page 156, line 36, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)' and insert '7,'.

No. 138, in page 156, line 37, after '21' insert 26A'.

No. 139, in page 156, line 38, after 'Act")";' insert 'and
( ) for the words "the 1989 Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act");'.

No. 140, in page 156, line 41, after -sections' insert '1A,'.

No. 141, in page 156, line 41, after '2(4)' insert '3A'.

No. 142, in page 156, line 41, after '21' insert 26A'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Schedule 9

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 166, in page 158, line 25, at end insert—

'Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty

. Section (Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty) of this Act does not apply where the offence was committed before the commencement of that section!.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 160, line 28, at end insert—

'1968 c.19.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968
In section 10(2), the words "(other than a supervision order within the meaning of that Part)".'.

No. 46, in page 161, line 35, at end insert—
'In section 125(4)(c), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii).
In section 126, the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c).'.

No. 143, in page 162, line 5, at end insert—

'1989 c.45.
Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989.
In section 39(7), the words from "and the foregoing" to the end.'.

No. 144, in page 162, line 47, column 3, at beginning insert—
'Section 11(3)(6) and (4).'.

No. 145, in page 162, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 16(7)(b).'.

No. 146, in page 163, line 4, at end insert—'
Section 130(4).'
—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 5, in title, line 5, after 'trial;' insert
'to reduce the age at which certain sexual acts are lawful;'.—
[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a particular pleasure for me. Having considered one criminal justice Bill after another in opposition since 1990, it is exciting to be involved with legislation that has real potential to change the quality of life for our constituents in every part of the country.
Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the Labour party's determination to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, we have been preparing to undertake ambitious reform of the criminal justice system. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary assumed office, he has won enormous credit and respect for his willingness to take on the difficult issues—not just those that gain immediate plaudits but the tough issues that must be tackled if we are to succeed in our ambition of creating a safe society.
A most exciting aspect is the way in which we are experiencing genuine enthusiasm from the police, local authorities and communities up and down the country. My hon. Friends referred today to the responses of their constituents when we have discussed with them the day-to-day problems that they experience on housing estates, in communities and in towns and cities throughout the country.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: Last week in my constituency, the local newspaper the Peterborough Evening Telegraph carried reports of most appalling levels of vandalism and harassment in Heltwate court in the Bretton part of my constituency. That area was once described as a state-of-the-art model housing development, but complaints from residents have tripled


in recent months. I am sorry to say that the perpetrators of those crimes are often young teenagers and those in their pre-teenage years. Last week, the editor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am on my feet. Is she making a speech or an intervention?

Mrs. Brinton: It is an intervention, and it will be brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that it can be brief now. Perhaps the hon. Lady will make it very brief.

Mrs. Brinton: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the editor of the local newspaper called the Government to account and asked when they were going to introduce parenting orders and address the problem. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that the parenting orders in the Bill will indeed have that effect?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes one very good point, which is that crime and disorder happen not elsewhere, but in each of our constituencies. It is right that she should concentrate on Peterborough, just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary often draws inspiration from Blackburn and I draw inspiration from Cardiff. It is a serious point that individual communities bear the brunt of crime and disorder, which is all too easy to regard as a set of statistics. I assure my hon. Friend that the measures in the Bill, including parenting orders and anti-social behaviour orders among many others, will make a real difference to the lives of her constituents.
One of the messages that have been brought home during the discussions leading up to the Bill and during our debates on the Bill is that cutting crime and disorder is a task for each one of us. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for making it clear that our task in Government is not to blame other people, but to be a part of the solution, working with the police, local authorities and everyone else. One of the Bill's most important elements is that it gives everyone an opportunity to be involved at local level, through the crime and disorder audit on which a local strategy to tackle crime and disorder can be built. There is to be a close partnership between the police, the local authority, other agencies and the wider community as they set about the task of reducing crime and disorder in their community.
It is especially important that the Bill addresses the problem of youth crime and makes it clear that the aim of the youth justice system is to reduce offending and reoffending. It sets about the job to which we are committed of speeding up youth justice and makes it clear that our measures are part of a comprehensive approach. Aspects such as the final warning and the introduction of the concept of reparation into our thinking about how the youth justice system works will make a difference by confronting youngsters with their behaviour and the damage that it does to the wider community, as well as to their victims. The secure detention and training order will help to bring coherence to the system of secure accommodation for youngsters who have to be detained securely.
Today, we have discussed the problems of racially motivated crime and the necessity of going further in giving confidence to certain communities, especially in response to the concerns of the Muslim community. The Bill sets about filling in the gaps in the system, with the anti-social behaviour order, the drug treatment and testing order and the sex offenders order, each of which is worthy of serious consideration by the House. I am pleased that scrutiny in Committee has led to considerable support for our approach in those matters.
Above all, it is important to recognise that legislation is the start, not the end, of a process. Later this year, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will be established. We are already working on preparation with police and local authorities and issuing guidance for local crime and disorder strategies. Each of those measures is individually important, but, taken together, they mark an enormous stride forward in the fight against the crime and disorder that has created so much misery for so many people. The aim of the Bill is simple: to build a safer and more responsible society. The Bill will help local communities to fight back against crime and anti-social behaviour. It does not finish, but begins the Government's root-and-branch reform of youth justice; and it will help to reduce delays and increase public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.
It is only fair to say that hon. Members who laboured in the Committee and those who participated in debates yesterday and today have helped to improve the Bill. In many cases, we have seen the House of Commons, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, at its best. At times, hon. Members have acted in a way that leads to controversy and argument, which are the stuff of political debate, but the result has been to improve the legislation, which is no small feat, given the easy temptation to indulge in knockabout, rather than positive debate. During the two days on Report, we have made significant further improvements. With Opposition support, we have strengthened the law against football hooligans, increased the maximum prison sentence available for those who breach a football restriction order and given the police powers to arrest someone who has, or is about to, breach an order.
I have referred to the important elements of the protection against racially aggravated offences. The concerns of the Muslim community and those of the Opposition led to the amendments that were considered earlier today to clarify that, under the terms of the new offences, it will be no defence to argue that an attack was based to any extent on religious hostility. Yesterday, the House took a clear view, on a free vote, that the age of consent for homosexuals should be brought into line with that for heterosexuals.
During more than 50 hours of debate in Committee significant changes were made to the Bill. As I anticipated on Second Reading, the clause establishing a standing advisory council on criminal justice and the penal system was removed from the Bill. The Government argued, and the Committee agreed, that such a body would be neither necessary nor desirable. However, the way in which we could deal with advice and guidance by the Appeal Court was improved and strengthened. That has again been the subject of a positive and constructive debate today.
Other important improvements include a new power for the police to take truanting children back to school, or to another safe place designated by the local


education authority. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that if we fail to tackle truancy we are failing our children. We are failing also the wider community but we are failing the children who truant. Children who exclude themselves from education are jeopardising their chances of leading useful and successful lives. They are also more likely to commit crime and to cause distress and nuisance. The measure is part of our wider programme to tackle school exclusions and truancy and so help every child make the most of his or her talents and opportunities.
I think that it is because of our partnership approach that our proposals were welcomed by the police. The police have always been doubtful about the idea of being lumbered with the problem of truancy. We have a combination of Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment and at the Home Office working together and providing a mechanism that allows co-operation at a local level to tackle truancy and the problems that arise from it.
We have seen added provisions to enable the police, in closely defined circumstances, to require the removal of face coverings. Too often in the past, people intent on violence and intimidation have disguised their identity with balaclavas, for example, causing greater fear and distress to their victims and frustrating the efforts of the police. The powers in the Bill will enable the police to unmask potential troublemakers before violence starts.
We have introduced provisions to clarify the way in which two or more sentences of imprisonment should be combined. We have given the Crown court the power to impose a confiscation order when an offender is committed to it for sentence.
Before we complete our consideration of the Bill, I say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and my hon. Friends who supported us in Committee that we have been gratified by the support that has been shown for the Bill generally and for many of its provisions. That can be said of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The Bill, when implemented, will help us fulfil 12 manifesto commitments. However, it is not a partisan measure. It is a practical measure designed to protect innocent people and to help restore law-abiding responsible communities.
On Second Reading, the main opposition parties gave the Bill a more or less qualified welcome. I feel that the input of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in Committee, as well as that of Labour Back-Bench Members, however brief and restrained those contributions were, was informed and instructive. Seven of the Government amendments agreed to on Report were inspired by points raised by Opposition parties in Committee. I have referred to several of them during earlier debates today, such as the ability to make an anti-social behaviour order crossing a local government boundary.
I believe that we will pass the Bill back to the other place considerably improved, and we started off with a pretty good Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is keen that many of the measures set out in the Bill should be proceeded with quickly so that the wider community can begin to benefit. In particular, the local crime reduction strategy,

for example, could be well in place by next April and the start of a new financial year, and a new planning year for both local authorities and the police.
Only once the Bill is enacted will the real work begin. Successful implementation will depend above all upon successful local partnership. It will be for practitioners and local communities throughout the country to make the Bill work for them so as to cut crime and reduce serious anti-social behaviour and thus make their communities safer and more pleasant places in which to live. I hope that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am eager to see that process start without delay. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: We did not vote against Second Reading; nor do we intend to vote against Third Reading, so I shall not detain from the Scotland match those who would prefer to watch it. Given what is happening in the match, however, they may prefer to be in the Chamber.
We have taken that attitude to the Bill because it includes a number of measures that we want to work. We are at one with the Government in the aims that lie behind the anti-social behaviour orders, the sex offender orders, and the youth care and youth treatment measures. We welcome the policy changes introduced by the Bill. It was refreshing and interesting, although in contrast with what he said in opposition, to hear the Minister of State, Home Office, talk in such admiring terms about tagging and the processes that go with it. My recollection is that that was not quite the attitude that the Labour party took a few months ago.
No one should be in any doubt about the difficulties that stand in the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), whom I congratulate on the way in which he handled Committee proceedings, was entirely correct to scrutinise, for example, the anti-social behaviour orders. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who was a member of the Committee. Someone who scrutinises a measure to discover whether it will work does not have to be against it in principle. I think that the Prime Minister's point on that was completely barmy, and, on reflection, so will he. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is making a remark from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear it. Perhaps he wants to make a speech.

Mr. Straw: I was paraphrasing Shakespeare in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 April. I said, "Methinks that he protests too much." He described the anti-social behaviour orders as dangerously unworkable. I am grateful to my hon. Friends, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, for educating the hon. Gentleman about the workability of the orders.

Sir Norman Fowler: If that is the only point that the Home Secretary wants to make, we are grateful that he did not make a speech, which we had been looking forward to. He will remember that my hon. Friend


the Member for Hertsmere dealt with that point comprehensively yesterday, to the entire satisfaction of this side of the House.

Mr. Allan: Of the whole House.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Even at this moment, the Lib-Lab alliance is breaking apart.
Another area of obvious difficulty which hon. Members must take seriously is youth crime and youth offenders. 1 recently met the Association of Directors of Social Services. It is in favour of the Bill in principle and wants it to succeed, but it pointed to the difficulties of the client group—if I may put it that way—with which it deals. It has provided me with some figures: 50 per cent. of young people under 18 in prison custody have a care background; 60 per cent. of young people in prison custody admit to misusing drugs; 17 per cent. of male young offenders admit to having suffered physical or sexual abuse; 39 per cent. of young offenders in prison custody have a long-standing illness or disability; and 60 per cent. of remanded male youths and 30 per cent. of sentenced male youths have a diagnosable mental disorder.
The Bill creates new ways of dealing with those offenders. However, it also creates new duties for a number of services concerned with law and order. The Association of Directors of Social Services is aware of that and has pointed to the crucial importance of resourcing the new orders and the new approaches that are to be set up. A similar point was put by the Central Probation Council, which said:
Every aspect of workload is increasing and substantially exceeds the projections on which government plans and budget forecasts were based.
That is the position now. In no way are those bodies against the Bill, but if new duties are to be created, they are saying that, above all, they will need new people.
What applies to them applies equally—if not more so—to the police. In trying to get information on police strength, I was less than impressed by the Home Office's ability and willingness to give that information. I was particularly unimpressed by the Minister of State, who began the debate.
Following an exchange in The Times between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Home Secretary, I sought to ask what I thought were some fairly standard questions. Two weeks ago, I asked the Home Office
how many police constables are currently employed in the police service in England and Wales
and
what is the current police officer strength of the police service in England and Wales.
On Thursday 11 June, after four days, I received the reply:
I will reply as soon as possible.
It is slightly amazing that the Home Office was unable to answer basic questions of that kind. That was in stark contrast to the other Minister of State, who answered similar statistical questions on immigration.
Evidently, the Home Office was able to provide the statistics in the end, but only after Home Office questions the following Monday. I was not unbelievably impressed

by that either. I do not intend to go into the details of those replies suffice it to say that, at the very best, police strength is levelling out, with a tendency to fall back. That is the fairest way in which I can state the position. Against that background, we are being presented with a Bill which will place new duties upon the police.

Mr. Allan: I was talking to my local chief constable in South Yorkshire the other day, and he informed me that he has decided to place a senior officer—I think of superintendent rank—in each local authority area to deal with the new provisions of the Bill. It is right that he should take it so seriously, but clearly that has resourcing implications for the entire force.

Sir Norman Fowler: That is the point. It is one thing to propose and pass legislation, but that legislation clearly has resource consequences. The Bill obviously has resource consequences for the police. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has pointed out, the police are stretched, and police numbers are not increasing.
I also asked the Minister of State to tell me
the real term increase in the budget for the police service in the current year".
He gave me not the real-terms increase, but the revenue budgets of police authorities. He said that they would rise by £255 million in 1998–99,
an increase of 3.7 per cent."—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol.313,c.646.]
We can take it that the real-terms increase in the police budget is not 3.7 per cent., but that was the question I asked. I assume that either the Minister or his officials are trying to hide the fact that the real-terms increase is much smaller.
Inflation stands at 4.2 per cent. I suspect that Treasury-measured inflation—which is slightly different and does not include mortgage interest—is more than 3 per cent. At the very best, we are looking at an increase in real-terms spending of less than 1 per cent. I hope that inflation will level out and reduce, but if it continues to increase, it will be fascinating to see what the real-terms increase will be as the year goes on.
It is difficult to see how all the measures in the Bill can successfully be implemented without a stronger police service. In our period of office, the number of police in post increased by more than 15,000 or 14 per cent. We responded to the new demands, and we want to ensure that the current Government do precisely the same.
We are giving the Bill its Third Reading, but passing this legislation will not, by itself, reduce crime and tackle disorder. That will be done only if the resources for the new duties, responsibilities and tasks being placed on the law and order services match the Government's objectives. Over the next months, we shall monitor the effectiveness of the Bill. We are not interested in gesture legislation, but in legislation that works.

Mr. McWalter: I realise that there is little time left, but I should like to place on record a few remarks about the Bill. I am a friend of the Bill, but I am a little confused. I hope that, either in my hon. Friend's reply or in the other place, some of my concerns will be addressed.
The Bill is about crime and disorder. It creates a new category of person: those who need to be ordered. There is much to be said for making people the subject of parenting orders, sex offender orders, drug treatment and testing orders and other such orders. However, I am confused about the clause dealing with orders that deem people to be anti-social. I do not know whether it is easy or hard to be deemed anti-social; I do not know whether it is easy or difficult to become someone who needs to be ordered.
Perhaps this is the vengeance of someone who was not a member of the Standing Committee. I gather that there is a draft elucidation of how the concept of needing to be ordered may be implemented, but I cannot find it anywhere because I was not on the Committee. It is not in the Library and it is not on the internet. I am left with the thought that perhaps it is easy to be a person who needs to be ordered. After all, under clause 1(1)(a) people who behave in a manner that causes distress have potentially behaved in an anti-social manner.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McWalter: In a moment, because my hon. Friend has had rather a lot of time to speak. I hope that he will forgive me if I resist his intervention for a moment.
When I was a child, I used to play football tennis. I realise that, as we are 3-0 down, the mention of football may be unfortunate. We played it with a ball bearing, which we kicked against a wall. One day, I kicked the ball bearing, which went through someone's window. Although I did not mean it—of course I did not mean it—my act was clearly capable of causing alarm and distress. Nevertheless, I did it. The concepts of repetition and of malevolence should be crucial in making anti-social behaviour orders, but it is difficult to capture such ideas.
One would not mind including such concepts in the Bill if implementing it were a matter only of providing an explication of its provisions to our courts. However, the orders will be made by local authorities, and each area will have its own understanding of the meaning of the provisions. Although I welcome devolution of power, and of responsibility for achieving the Bill's laudable objectives, I think we will have to face up to the fact there could be as many interpretations of the anti-social behaviour provisions as there are words in the Bible. I do not think that that was a planned feature of the Bill, and therefore ask for some elucidation of how the Bill will be implemented.
It may be rather easy, or quite difficult, to be deemed to be "anti-social". Clause 1(1)(b) states
that such an order is necessary to protect persons
from further anti-social acts. Yesterday, when dealing with an Opposition amendment, the House considered the "necessity" condition, and hon. Members agreed that the condition would be very difficult to meet. We essentially agreed that it would be difficult to establish the necessity of an order.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend seems to have some difficulty in establishing what constitutes anti-social behaviour. He should listen to some of my constituents. In my surgery, they have told me how, day in and day out, they suffer from anti-social behaviour, and how the police and the council are powerless to act.

They know the meaning of the phrase "anti-social behaviour". If my hon. Friend will listen to them and to the debate, he will learn the meaning of the term.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about that.
There are situations in which there is a clear understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour. However, there are also conflicts in which one person accuses another person of harassment, and the accused accuses the accusor of causing distress. Sorting out such conflicts is extremely difficult. We will therefore have to have a much clearer understanding of the provisions.
Clause 1(5) essentially states that an order will not be imposed on someone who can demonstrate that his or her behaviour was reasonable. However, the provision seems very much to be loaded in favour of the articulate and of older people. I am not sure that people will be able to secure themselves against a possibly malevolent accusation of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware also of that type of accusation.
Clause 1(7) makes it clear that someone who is made subject to an order will be put in a nasty and difficult situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary therefore owes it to the House to tell us whether it will be easy for a council to impose an order. If so, many people will be made subject to orders, and there will be a lot of trouble. Conversely, if it is difficult to impose an order, the letter of the provisions will become as dead as that of football restriction orders. Perhaps the orders will be somewhere in between the two extremes. Nevertheless, how will we ensure that there is uniform interpretation of an Act that will he the property of such widely varying authorities?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) has raised some points that Liberal Democrat Members raised in Committee and on Report. We share his concerns. However, I think that he has caused "harassment, alarm or distress" to Ministers and to the Whip, who is already writing out a draft anti-social behaviour order which will soon be applied to the hon. Gentleman.
Despite some reservations—which I shall mention shortly—we think it is well worth giving the Bill a Third Reading, as it has many good things in it. We welcome early intervention in the cases of young offenders, including the potential role of the Youth Justice Board, youth justice plans and youth offending teams in providing constructive responses to young people who offend. The requirement to devise and implement local crime reduction strategies is welcome. Also welcome are the plans to tackle drug-related crime with drug treatment and testing orders, which we see as potentially the first steps towards specialised drugs courts to help break the cycle of drug addiction and crime.
The Bill also provides for greater protection of the public through greater supervision of serious offenders once they have left prison. We welcome the new sentencing advisory panel, the overhaul of sentencing guidelines to promote greater consistency, and the introduction of racially aggravated sentences, which sends a message on hate crimes—although we still see a gap,


because religion as such is not included. We welcome what the Government said tonight on that subject, but until the picture is complete, there will be a gap.
There are things about the Bill that we do not like, however. I have voiced my criticism tonight of the child curfew proposals. Other measures, although not necessarily bad in themselves, have been greatly exaggerated in terms of impact. Part of the answer to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead is that Ministers have made it clear, so far as I can see, that some of the orders will not be widely used and will be quite difficult to secure. Hon. Members who leapt enthusiastically to their feet to imply that a new dawn would break because of the availability of these powers were looking at the wrong parts of the Bill. The parts of the Bill that potentially have the greatest value are those that will encourage and enable the various agencies dealing with offenders to get together and work on co-ordinated strategies.
In some cases, the order procedures may be of assistance, but, if misused or if used excessively, they will be harmful and, in some instances, will risk alienating young people who are innocent or who have embarked only briefly on criminal behaviour and could be turned away from it if a more positive intervention were made.
We are concerned about other aspects of the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee the ending of the practice of remanding young boys to prison, despite the pledges given on that. We are anxious to see progress on reform of the youth justice system. It is rather discouraging to hear unsatisfactory elements in the Bill defended because the Government have not yet been able to sort out the youth justice system. We shall be pressing them on that.
I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that perhaps the most fundamental problem will be the resources required to implement the Bill by agencies which are already severely stretched—the police, the probation service and the almost non-existent youth service in local authorities. All those bodies simply do not have the necessary resources, yet considerable demands are being made of them. Cutting crime is a valuable investment, and if Home Office Ministers needed any assistance in telling their Treasury colleagues that, it has been offered from various parts of the House tonight.
A final criticism of the Bill is its treatment of Scotland. It was never good practice to shove bits of Scottish criminal legislation—from what the Minister has tonight described as a completely different jurisdiction—into essentially English legislation. I hope and believe that this will be the last time we ever do that, because a Scottish Parliament will very shortly be dealing with these matters.
Although there was a free vote on it, I personally welcomed the decision to equalise the age of consent. I agonised hard over it when we voted on it a year or two ago. I came to a conclusion that I supported with my vote again this time and I am pleased with the outcome, although I think the Government were given a pretty clear signal by the relatively narrow defeat of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). That shows the extent of the concern that something should be done about predatory people in positions of authority, in relation to heterosexual and homosexual behaviour and in relation to the girls and boys

who are in their charge. The Government must regard that as a signal to move ahead quickly with the proposals that they mentioned in response to that amendment.
I must say a word of appreciation to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) for their work in Committee. They both testified that it was a rather good Committee and that serious discussion prevailed. We were glad to encounter some liberal-minded Conservatives. Freed from the tyranny of that person who has something of the night about him, they seemed able to express sensible, liberal and constructive views. My two hon. Friends are new to the job and acquitted themselves well—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam who bore the greatest responsibility while simultaneously serving on another Standing Committee and on two Select Committees. We have reduced his load, although that is no criticism of the excellent work that he did on the Bill.

Angela Smith: It is encouraging that the Bill is welcomed by members of all parties, but the real test will be the reaction not of Members of Parliament, but of our constituents, to the practical application of the measures and how they affect them. I should like to give an example that might encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) to be more supportive of the Bill. Considering the time, I shall be brief.
A father of three came to my surgery. He had suffered harassment and violence beyond what any of us can imagine—not just once or twice, but day in, day out. The police were able to take action on the violence. The men were convicted and sentences were passed, but the day they were released they were back to harassing him and his family day in, day out. His quality of life has been destroyed. He no longer feels at home in his house. He does not feel relaxed; he is fearful and nervous; and his and his family's health has suffered. They are the people whom the Bill should protect. We can all identify one or two similar cases from our experience in which the police and the council are sympathetic—and the Member of Parliament is very sympathetic—but we cannot do anything. The Bill can make a difference.
The most important aspect of the Bill is that it prevents reoffending. Reducing the level of reoffending is the key to cutting crime. I welcome the measures on community safety partnerships. I pay tribute to my local authorities, particularly to Basildon and Thurrock councils, but also—unusually for a Labour Member; this may be the only time that I do so for a while—to Essex county council, for their work on community safety partnerships. I hope that other Essex Members will join me in also paying tribute to Robert Erith, the former high sheriff of Essex. Basildon does not normally take kindly to men in frilly shirts and tights, but on this occasion we make an exception. Community safety was the issue closest to his heart. He worked particularly hard on it and became a great friend of Basildon. I pay tribute to his work, which will continue after his term of office.
The real issue is not just crime but the fear of crime. I bring to the attention of Ministers a report from the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, which shows the fear of crime among pensioners. Some 56 per cent. of pensioners say that they go out less at


night because of their fear of crime. They have not all been attacked, but they are frightened of being victims of crime. That is a serious problem. Some 71 per cent. felt that local policing levels were inadequate. That is why all sections of the community have to be brought on board to work together in community safety partnerships. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure pensioners that everyone will be consulted and involved in community safety partnerships.
I hope that my hon. Friend will also pay tribute to those local authorities that said that they would work hard on community safety before the House placed a statutory duty on them. The previous Government failed to legislate on the issue, despite the Morgan report saying that they should, but many local authorities have taken on board community safety partnerships. They will provide the model for all local authorities.
The Bill is widely welcomed. The Minister said that it was an ambitious reform; it is, but it is also long overdue. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Leigh: I pay tribute to my fellow Conservative Back Benchers in Committee, who sustained our debates with very little help from Labour Back Benchers—;although their presence was welcome.
It was charming to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in action in Committee. For many years, he laboured in the dry soil of the Opposition vineyard, trying to nurture the delicate plants that he has brought with such pride to the House tonight. At the same time, he was uprooting 100 years of Labour tradition in defence of civil liberties. Whatever he says tonight, he will not convince the House or the nation that simply introducing a few bureaucratic orders will make much difference to crime and disorder.
As a recent Home Office study made clear, the real problem is that the key factors relating to criminality are being male and being brought up by a criminal parent or parents. Those who live with both natural parents were the least likely ever to start to offend; the difference in offending rates was statistically significant, for both males and females in that category.
As we well know, the problem with crime and disorder relates not to any particular Bill that we may introduce but to the decline in family values in western society. The Labour party may choose to blame the years of materialism and consumerism under Margaret Thatcher, and the Conservative party may blame the increase in dependency brought about by various socialist Governments and socialist councils on council estates. I do not know the answer, but I am certain that the few gushing speeches that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers trying to convince us that the Bill will make a difference go way over the top.
The former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, described the 27-point plan of the then Conservative Home Secretary as a series of gimmicks to get a headline. That is exactly what the Bill amounts to. Improvements in crime and disorder depend not on the content of the Bill, which will make very little difference, but on the content of the footnotes to the Red Book on the funding of police forces throughout England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton

Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) hit the nail on the head today with his pertinent remarks about the very small increase in funding for the police force.
We had some lighter moments in Committee—not least the Under-Secretary's reply to a question I asked him about the abolition of hanging for piracy in the south seas. He said:
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the remit of the Royal Navy to deal with piracy in the south seas. However, if it found any pirates in the south seas whom it was thinking of hanging I suspect that it would not seek to bring them to the Isle of Man to do so."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 June 1998; c. 861.]
I commend the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has replied to our points with such good humour during the past five or six weeks.
Will the anti-social behaviour orders make much difference? I suspect that they are just another form of the friendly policeman's pat on the back, which we have known and loved over the years. I suspect that they will make little difference.
I do not know whether parenting orders will make much difference—it all depends on resources. I hope that the Bill will manage to speed up youth justice. Those of us with experience in the courts have often commented on the delays—usually caused by lawyers—to youth justice. In that respect, I wish the Bill every success.
I suspect that this is just another well-intentioned Bill. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, which is why there is no point in Conservatives opposing it. Why should we oppose it when so much of it was contained in our own manifesto last year? It is yet another Bill launched by the Home Office—we have had so many in the past—on the stormy seas of the criminal justice system. We shall see it sail away and it will be forgotten in a year's time. Crime and disorder will continue to rise on our estates unless we address the fundamental problems of the decline of moral, social and ethical values in society.

Mr. Clappison: All legislation concerned with criminal justice and public order calls for especially careful and constructive scrutiny, and this Bill is no exception. I should like to think that we have given it the degree of scrutiny appropriate to such legislation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the part that they played—and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who assisted on the Bill's Scottish measures, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). The House will have gathered that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was rightly concerned to delve into every nook and cranny, including whether pirates could be taken from the south seas to the Isle of Man to meet their just deserts. We approached the Bill in a spirit of complete scrutiny, which we believe was appropriate.
All Governments set great store by presentation—I do not think it too controversial to say at this late hour that this Government are no exception. However, presentation is not everything—it is important to examine the detail and to see what happens to it later.
We are pleased that some of the amendments that we tabled were accepted, including amendments on such important subjects as stiffening the law against football


hooligans and allowing victims to receive financial compensation as well as reparation—the latter amendment was passed today. However, we shall have to return to many of the amendments that were not accepted, including those on such important subjects as drugs—further action needs to be taken, especially against people who push drugs. We believe that further detailed consideration needs to be given to fill in some of the gaps in the Bill—on sex offenders, for example.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was absolutely right to say that we need to examine the question of resources and whether the Government's good intentions are followed through in practice: I put the Government on notice that we shall scrutinise that question every bit as carefully as we scrutinised the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I have time only to make one point, and I must combat the message given by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—the shadow Home Secretary—and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), that we shall somehow tackle problems by throwing money at them. The Audit Commission report demonstrated the need for efficiency and effectiveness. The Government have given an increase in resources of 3.7 per cent. to the police this year—that money must be used effectively. The police know that, by co-ordinating the resources of local authorities—

It being six hours and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair:—

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Israeli-occupied Territories

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Richard Burden: I recently had the opportunity to spend a week in the west bank and the Gaza strip with a number of colleagues from the Labour middle east council. I am grateful for this opportunity to describe some of the things that we witnessed and what we were told about the way in which international law operates in that part of the world.
Today, I and others met and put our concerns to the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The meeting was private, so it would be wrong to discuss in detail what was said. However, the Israeli ambassador asked me to say tonight that I recognised the real concerns of the Israeli people to live in peace and security, and the personal tragedies and losses that so many Israeli families have suffered in the past 50 years of conflict. I willingly do so, and I say without doubt or hesitation that Israel has a right to exist within secure and recognised borders. I accept that—those borders have been internationally recognised since 1948.
I want tonight to address not the position inside those borders, but the position outside them, in those territories that were occupied by Israel in 1967 and which remain under occupation to this day. Those territories are covered by numerous United Nations resolutions, by the provisions of the internationally ratified Oslo accords and, as occupied territories, by the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention. The people who live there, like people in every part of the world, have a right to expect that they will be protected by the universal declaration of human rights. From our experience in the occupied territories only a few weeks ago, however, I must tell the House that there are considerable causes for concern on each of those grounds.
At the heart of the Oslo process is the principle of land for peace. Both sides agreed that they would not take actions that would pre-empt the results of negotiation. We still do not know exactly what Israel's final response will be to the United States proposals for a withdrawal from a further 13 per cent. of the occupied land. However, as we travelled round the west bank, we could see that the illegal settlement building was continuing and we witnessed roads being built. The roads criss-cross the west bank—bypass roads built for the most part on confiscated Arab land.
It is also becoming clear to the local population that that road building seems to be part of a long-term plan to pre-empt the results of the final negotiations. The maps show a pattern developing—a pattern of settlement blocks and bypass roads that reflect political and not natural boundaries and are designed to take in precious water resources. They appear to be splitting the Palestinian centres of population into many small islands, each detached from the others and permanently dislocated from east Jerusalem. When put together with the daily restrictions that Palestinians face on movement, many people have being saying—I think that they can legitimately suggest this—that what appears to be being created on the west bank today is a series of Palestinian Bantustans. Settlement building is not merely illegal; it is a threat to the peace process itself.


During our recent visit, we were shown around the site of Har Homa at Jabal Abu Ghneim. We could see for ourselves how Israeli plans to develop that prime site in the heart of Palestinian territory on the south-eastern corner of Jerusalem, overlooking the hills that lead to Bethlehem, should have caused such outrage and fear among the Palestinian population.
During our tour of that area, we were also taken to a point in the north-east part of the city, looking toward the settlement of Maale Adumim and shown an area of open land that has been earmarked for what has become known in the area as the E1 project, which is designed to expand the boundaries of the settlement and create a territorial link between Jewish settlements beyond the green line and the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. A decision to go ahead with that development could be made at any time and would almost certainly lead to the same sort of disastrous political consequences that accompanied the decision to go ahead with building the settlement at Har Homa. That was three weeks ago, and a potentially explosive situation is now being compounded further by the Israeli Cabinet's decision on Sunday to extend further the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and, apparently, annex the land on which a number of settlements have already been built in occupied areas.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me and use this opportunity to condemn unreservedly that latest illegal act in defiance of the Oslo peace agreement and the provisions of international law that remain applicable to the occupied west bank. I also hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me that the Israeli ambassador has been reminded of the commitment of the United Kingdom and our European partners to a peace process that is based on international law and the protection of human rights.
I hope also that the Israeli Government have been reminded that the United Kingdom and the international community regard east Jerusalem and the west bank as occupied territory and that any changes made to the status of the city of Jerusalem and any borders redefined unilaterally by the Israeli Government are absolutely prohibited under international law.
Jerusalem is one of the most difficult issues of the peace process. That is why Oslo stipulated that it should be left to final status negotiations and why the architects of Oslo—Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat—wanted to build confidence-building measures that could lead that way. Developments in Jerusalem today are undermining that process and pre-empting those final status negotiations.
Housing laws operate in a discriminatory way. Homes are scheduled for demolition on the Palestinian side, while we are informed that less than 8 per cent. of east Jerusalem is available for Palestinian development. It is difficult for a Palestinian to get planning permission to extend his or her home. Whole areas of east Jerusalem are being designated as green zones, which apparently has less to do with environmental protection than with preventing building to house the Palestinian people of the area. As their families expand, and their population expands, all too many Palestinian families feel that they have to move out.
Only 7 per cent. of public services in the municipality are made available to the residents of east Jerusalem. I interviewed Naela Zaru, who is aged 40 and who was recently evicted from her home at 60 Rehov Hasaraya,

also known as Diskin house, in east Jerusalem. Eviction followed a dispute with a family of settlers over ownership of the apartment. It had been through the Israeli courts twice. Once, the Palestinian woman won, and on the other occasion the Israeli family won. What was interesting was that after the Palestinian woman won, it took no less than nine months to ensure that the court's decisions were implemented and the Israeli family evicted. When it worked the other way round and the Israeli family won, eviction took place within 10 days, and was supervised by both the police and the military.
When I interviewed Naela, she was sitting on the steps outside a neighbour's house. Her possessions were in a storeroom, having been put out on the streets a few days before. The consequence of her eviction may be the loss not only of her home, but of her very right to live in Jerusalem. One of the most insidious developments is what appears to be a deliberate attempt to alter the demographic character of Jerusalem by denying more and more Palestinians the identity cards that they need to live in east Jerusalem.
Palestinians in Jerusalem face several inter-related problems. Identity cards can be withdrawn if they cannot prove to the satisfaction of the Israeli authorities that their "centre of life" is in Jerusalem. Withdrawal of an ID card can lead to problems in other areas, such as an inability to register the birth of a child. Anyone who seeks to marry a non-Jerusalemite must apply for a family reunification permit, and the chances are that it will be refused. If so, the person would have to live outside Jerusalem, and living outside Jerusalem for only a limited period means that the chances are that an ID will be withdrawn.
According the Centre for the Study of Civil and Social Rights, in the period from 1 January 1996 to 24 November 1997, a total of 63 ID cards were confiscated, 313 family reunification requests were pending, 194 had been turned down and 208 cases had been deleted from the computer of the Israeli Ministry of the Interior, so that those Palestinian families had simply disappeared. There had been 130 deportation orders during that period, and 23 cases of lack of permits or tourist visas for Palestinians. There were seven cases of lack of laissez-passers, 16 of inability to register the birth of children and 49 in which Palestinians were unable to replace lost ID cards. In the period between November 1997 and May 1998, there were 425 new cases in those categories.
There is a way round all that for the Palestinian. He or she can swear allegiance to the state of Israel, gaining permanent status. However, to make fundamental rights conditional on swearing allegiance contravenes article 45 of the Hague regulations, which stipulate that
it is forbidden to compel residents of an occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power.
All this is not only illegal. It creates a climate in which Jerusalem Day, on the 31st anniversary of the occupation of east Jerusalem, was marked by a militaristic parade of armed settlers into the east. It creates a climate in which settlers from the Ateret Cohanim group felt able to move into east Jerusalem with Israeli troops to guard them. When they were eventually told to leave, they secured a deal to be able to guard the area.
I ask the Minister to agree that all that is contrary to the peace process, and to international law. I hope that he will agree that Britain should join moves at the United Nations to ensure that the fourth Geneva convention is


implemented more thoroughly, that Israel is reminded of its obligations under UN resolutions —particularly 242 and 298—and that the European Union-Israel trade agreement will not be used to allow importation to the EU on preferential terms of produce from illegal settlements in occupied land. I also ask the Minister to agree that peace will come only when all sides in the middle east recognise that all sides have rights, and that those rights must be protected. That is not what is happening now.
I close with a short, anonymous poem by a Palestinian that talks about the situation in the occupied territories much more graphically than I could. It says:
Theodore Herzl once said the Jews must go to Palestine because it was 'a land without people for a people without land'. I cry, I sorrow, for that land was mine. I am people, the Palestinians are people, and you who have suffered such persecutions, have forced us to pick up your ancient cry:
'NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM'."

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on raising these issues and on the way in which he introduced the topic. Anyone who had the benefit of hearing him knows that he raised it in a way that reflected his deep, long-standing personal commitment.
My hon. Friend raised three issues. The first is technical and I shall deal with it straight away. Secondly, he raised the international legal position. Thirdly, and much more importantly, he mentioned the peace process, and development and rights within that.
On the more technical matter, my hon. Friend referred to the EU-Israel trade agreement, labels of origin and enforcement of the procedures in relation to Israel. That is a matter for the Commission. During the UK presidency, we have supported its actions so far. When it comes to enforce the European law in that respect, we will continue to support it. It is important that countries of origin are clearly labelled and marked so that the consumer can have faith in that labelling. We expect the Commission to enforce that against any country that has a trade arrangement with the European Union.
My hon. Friend clearly set out his views on the international legal position on settlements. Until a final settlement is agreed, we will base our position on the United Nations Security Council resolutions. International humanitarian law will remain the basis for our policy on the occupied territories. The key to that, as my hon. Friend said, is the fourth Geneva convention of 1949. Again, we have consistently called upon Israel to comply fully with its provisions. Israel ratified it in 1951, so we are asking Israel to do no more than what it has committed itself to for the past 47 years. Successive UK Governments have never accepted the Israeli argument that the convention does not apply to occupied territories. That has been the UK position for many years—many people would say too many years in relation to progress on the issue.
Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention clearly states:
The Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
It appears difficult not to agree that the purpose of the Israeli settlers, and perhaps of the present Government of Israel, is to change demographically the population and structure throughout the occupied territories. Following that through logically, as my hon. Friend did, it appears to be inconsistent with article 49.
My hon. Friend also asked what action the UK had taken in relation to the fourth Geneva convention. We have constantly reminded Israel of its obligations under the convention. More recently, the United Kingdom, in its EU presidency, supported the UN resolution in March calling for a full conference of the high contracting parties to the fourth Geneva convention to discuss the Israeli violations.
We welcome in particular the efforts of the Swiss Government in making progress on the resolution. This month, President Cotti of Switzerland hosted a meeting of representatives of Israel, Palestine and the International Red Cross to discuss how to improve the situation. It was good to see both parties engaged in the process. We want that process to go further, and to relate to the international law and the spirit behind it.
My hon. Friend asked me about the Israeli Cabinet decision of this weekend and the United Kingdom Government's response to it. We took the opportunity yesterday to make clear our position, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom, but of the European Union presidency. We expressed our concern
at the Israeli Government's endorsement of plans which will alter the demographic balance in the Jerusalem area.
The statement continued:
The European Union has repeatedly called for a halt to unilateral activity in Jerusalem. The plans currently under discussion would complicate the peace process at a very sensitive time.
The EU's position on Jerusalem is well known. We believe that the final status of Jerusalem should be determined in final status talks. Neither side should pre-empt this.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the statement that we issued yesterday on behalf of the EU presidency in response to the Israeli Government's decision clearly stated the EU's position. That position was reinforced at the Cardiff summit a few days ago, and has been consistent from the Luxembourg statement through to the Cardiff statement.
The key point that my hon. Friend wanted to make was that without progress on the peace process, the sense of frustration and despair will increase significantly. He has drawn that from his experiences in his recent visits to the west bank. I was in the area in January at the beginning of the UK presidency, and I had exactly the same experiences. I sensed the same lack of hope, and the frustration and despair felt by the Palestinians.
The Palestinians do not have a monopoly on frustration and despair. There are many in Israel who want progress to be made on the peace process. Recent opinion polls in Israel show that 70 per cent. are in favour of peace and the principles of the Oslo peace accord. The obvious act of diplomacy is to bring together those on both sides who want to make peace—the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Our task is to ensure that we can achieve that objective.


My hon. Friend rightly talked about his visit to Har Homa. I also went to Har Homa and saw what my hon. Friend referred to. That development is significant, not only because of the land that is covered, but because of the trust between the two parties. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Har Homa, he was subjected to some criticism. He was absolutely right to go there because, in doing so, he made a strong and cogent point that if there is action that pre-empts the final status negotiations, it will be impossible to make progress—and it is progress to which we all aspire. It is crucial that no action is taken to pre-empt the final status negotiations. The settlements do that, and we have always said that the status of Jerusalem is a crucial part of those final status talks.
At the start of the United Kingdom presidency, we set out our own objectives in terms of the middle east peace process. We have always agreed with the policy position taken by the European Union that the real way forward is on the basis of Oslo and on the basis of land for peace, and that, meanwhile, there should be action to build, not undermine, confidence.
However, we wanted to make a more active commitment to those policy objectives, and we wanted to see what we could do to push the process forward. We were told whenever we visited the middle east—and in the United Kingdom, by those supporting the Palestinian case—that it was important for the European Union to aspire to and achieve a greater role and higher profile in the peace process. I believe that, at the end of the United Kingdom presidency, we have achieved that objective, and that we have shown that the European Union has a complementary role to play in developing the United-States-led peace initiative.
It is always clear that the peace initiative will be led by the United States, but the European Union role has been to complement that leadership, and I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that, through the activity of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, we have taken a lead to ensure that the European voice is heard throughout that process.
It is crucial that we recognise the frustration that exists—that we recognise the fact that, without a peace agreement, we shall not see the middle east to which all of us, whichever way we approach these issues, aspire. One of the things that have pleased me in the past few months in the House of Commons is that no one now argues that to be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestine, or that to be anti-Palestine is to be pro-Israel. Hon. Members now recognise that we are all committed to the peace process; we recognise the importance of the peace process for Israelis and Palestinians. That is why we took action to try to build up Israeli confidence. For that reason, too, during our presidency, we have tried to help the Palestinians to fulfil their security commitments as part of the Oslo process. That is important to win Israeli confidence—to ensure that the ordinary Israeli believes in, and has faith in, the peace process.
For that reason also, in a complementary way, we took action to try to build up Palestinian confidence—action to encourage progress on some interim economic measures,

such as the industrial estate and Gaza airport. Above all, we continued to make clear our commitment that land for peace is the basic requirement for progress in the middle east.
My hon. Friend, talking eloquently about the feeling of frustration, reflects the point, which is well taken by every hon. Member, that, because we have been unable to resolve this crucial question, the middle east has suffered economically—it has under-performed. My hon. Friend mentioned the gross injustice of there being some affluence alongside poverty. That injustice can be dealt with only by making progress in the peace process.
We are determined, when we hand over the EU presidency, to continue to play a complementary and supportive role in the process, and to ensure that there is a continued European commitment. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are at a crossroads. The issue is not just about the settlements and it is not just about international law. It is much more about whether there is any belief that progress will be made.
I would say to the Israelis that 70 per cent. or more of the people of Israel are committed to peace; I welcome and support that, and I believe that we should all work in that direction. However, we must not miss opportunities when they are available. My plea to the Israeli Government is to recognise that an opportunity for peace exists; we must take such opportunities when they become available.
The Palestinians are now willing to sign up to the offer that the Americans are trying to broker. That initiative was accepted by the Palestinians in an act of statesmanship which will stand them in good stead. It is crucial that the Israeli people—and the Israeli Government in particular—see the opportunity to make progress, recognise the commitments that the state of Israel has already made towards land for peace and try to move that process forward.
The negatives are apparent. The negative view that says we shall not make progress will lead to a build-up of frustration and despair on both sides of the divide. My simple view is that that is in the interests of neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and it is an outcome which we must avoid.
My other advice to the Israeli Government—for what it is worth—is to remember that if the negotiations are to make progress, they must involve two parties with self-confidence and self-esteem. It is important to recognise that President Arafat has made significant concessions and has made every effort to keep the peace process going. The Israeli Government, of whatever political persuasion, need a partner in the negotiating process. I urge the Israeli Prime Minister to take the opportunity of negotiating with a partner who is keen to negotiate. The risk involved in that exercise is considerably less than the risk of no negotiations and no progress.
I recognise the deep feelings that exist in the House and throughout Europe regarding the middle east question. We must make progress, and we shall continue to work to try to achieve that progress. However, if we do not succeed, I share my hon. Friend's concerns that the situation will become more and more difficult to manage. Good people—those who want peace, and who act and vote for peace—will find it very difficult to control others whose


wishes may be different. That is why this process involves not just a legal position—which my hon. Friend set out clearly in his speech—but politics, diplomacy and, above all, statesmanship. We need political leaders who will look beyond the present and recognise that the true interests of their people lie in a long-term settlement that

will benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I commend my hon. Friend for raising the issue, and he was right to do so—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.